Rodger Cuzner

[Old Age Security, May 10th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to join in the debate today and to support the motion put forward by my colleague, the member for Charlottetown. It is a very important motion and one that has really seized many from my own riding and across the country.

Canada enjoys one of the lowest seniors poverty rates in the world. A large part of this success was the introduction of the old age security and guaranteed income supplement and Canada pension plan by Liberal governments in the 1950s and 1960s.

The Conservative government's plan to increase the OAS eligibility age from 65 to 67 is a regressive move at a time when the number of low-income seniors in Canada is on the rise. In fact, the numbers have doubled between 2007 and 2009. This move will force thousands of poor, vulnerable seniors, including women and disabled people who depend on OAS and GIS to keep them out of poverty, to wait two more years and forgo over $30,000 in payments. Seniors groups, poverty groups and disability groups have all taken issue with the OAS change and how it will adversely affect the poor people they represent.

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities points out that Canadians with disabilities disproportionately live in poverty. Between 45% and 60% of those living on provincial social assistance programs are persons with disabilities. Increasing the entitlement age for OAS and GIS will keep these people living in poverty for two years longer than necessary.

Women also will be disproportionately affected. They receive fewer Canada pension benefits than men, leaving them with less income at 65. Statistics Canada reports that 18% of women living alone over the age of 65 are indeed living in poverty. A 2009 report prepared by the human resources department was very clear in stating that over 35% of women between 65 and 69 would fall below the poverty line without OAS or GIS.

These facts should be telling the government that we have to do more, not less, to assist low-income seniors.

Maybe the government will silence its critics and release a national poverty strategy that would ensure low-income seniors, such as women and the disabled, do not fall between the cracks with the change in this eligibility. Could it be that the government would finally implement some strategies and recommendations made by a number of reports on poverty in the last few years, including the Senate's report, “In From the Margins: A Call to Action on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness”, or the House's own report, “The Federal Poverty Reduction Plan: Working In Partnership Towards Reducing Poverty in Canada”? These are both very well-respected reports. Maybe it could be the National Council on Welfare's own report, “The Dollars and Sense of Solving Poverty”?

Sadly, I have to say no. The government's response to these reports is to disregard, discredit and then dismiss them. In the case of the National Council on Welfare, the government just did away with the organization completely.

The Conservative government has used nothing but false and misleading claims for its reason to change the eligibility. It says the program is unsustainable, but does not say what is sustainable. It says it needs to increase the age of eligibility to save OAS, but will not say how much the move will save. There is no information and no debate on an issue that will affect every Canadian that will be born from this day forward and every Canadian under the age of 54. Does this sound reasonable? Is this what one would expect from a government that claims to be open and accountable for its actions? From a reasonable government, yes; from the Conservative government, no. Killing debate, silencing opponents, shredding the truth and using propaganda to create fact from fiction are just par for the course, and it is no different with the OAS than it is with the F-35 scandal.

The government declares a crisis and paints an apocalyptic picture of OAS bankrupting the country if something is not done. One would expect, therefore, that it would introduce the age change immediately. In the face of this supposed impending crisis, this financial apocalypse, the government is going to wait 18 whole years before fully implementing the change. The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development has said:

What we're going to do is make sure that people...have time to still prepare for our own retirement.

This may sound reasonable and sensible, but I would argue it is neither. The OAS crisis, the government argues, exists because the baby boomer generation will be a bulge that will cost the system progressively between now and 2030; however, what does not make sense is that the peak of this bulge is predicted to be, ironically, in 2031, at almost the same time the OAS change will take full effect. By that time, the cost train will have already left the station. The relative cost of OAS will actually start to decline soon after. In fact, the cost of OAS to GDP is projected to be lower by 2060 than it is today, so the measure will be largely ineffective. There is no crisis, just politics and fearmongering.

The delay in full implementation is also completely unreasonable to low-income people, who the Conservatives are basically saying need to save more for their own retirement or go on provincial welfare when they reach age 65. How insulting to the over half million working Canadians who live below the poverty line. How do the Conservatives expect these people who barely get by week to week to save an additional $30,000? For people who are poor, knowing that they need to save and having the ability to save are two completely different things.

The Conservatives cite the fact that Canadians are living longer, but what they fail to realize is that the human body can only work at physically demanding jobs for so long. It is not that people working in these jobs do not want to work past 65, but that many people will not be able to do it physically.

As well, in 2006 the government's Chief Actuary found that the average life expectancy at 65 of people receiving GIS is much shorter than the life expectancy of those too rich to receive OAS. He found that for men, poorer seniors are dying four and a half years earlier than the rich. For women, the difference is three and a half years. Reducing effective retirement years by two will be far more punishing on the poor than the rich.

Although the government has not produced any evidence that OAS is not sustainable, independent experts have studied the issue and have reported that it is. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, in his report earlier this year, said that the federal fiscal structure “...now has sufficient room to absorb the cost pressures arising from the impact of population aging on the federal elderly benefits program.”

A recent report prepared by OECD states:

The analysis suggests that Canada does not face major challenges of financial sustainability with its public pension schemes.

It goes on to say:

There is no pressing financial or fiscal need to increase pension ages in the foreseeable future.

The Conservatives say other countries are raising their retirement, so we must do the same, a sort of monkey see, monkey do approach. They cite many countries that have raised their retirement age. What they fail to mention is that several of these countries are increasing their retirement age to below or equal to Canada's current age. For example, France is increasing minimum age from 60 to 62. As well, some of these countries allow for early retirement at reduced benefits. The United States allows early retirement at 62.

Finally—and I think this is critical—although countries like the United States and the U.K. have a higher retirement age, their public pension systems cost relatively more now than Canada's system will ever cost over the next 50 years. According to a 2011 OECD report on pensions, the U.S. system in 2007 cost 6% of their GDP and the UK system cost 5.9%; ours is 2.34%.

This is just another attack on those most vulnerable in our society, those most vulnerable Canadians. I very much support the motion put forward by my colleague from Charlottetown and I will be voting in favour of the motion.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, May 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we had a late night yesterday and the member for Beaches—East York pulled the night shift. The Minister of National Defence and some of his cohorts were in the chamber in committee of the whole. As frustrating as that was, we now can appreciate what Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, goes through.

There is a lot of rhetoric on the other side. The comment has been made a couple of times that the government has allotted more time to this debate than ever before. Off the top of my head, I know the last Liberal budget we presented was only about 120 pages. This one is 450 pages or so. It was about a quarter of the size and the second reading of the last Liberal budget certainly went longer than this.

I am sure my colleague is feeling a sense of frustration coming out of last night's committee of the whole. Opposition members and journalists have known for a long time about frustration the Parliamentary Budget Officer has felt. He has been stifled. What did he experience last night with the stonewalling of the government on so many aspects of the F-35 contract?

[Committees of the House, May 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I had the great pleasure to serve for a period of time on the fisheries and oceans committee. I served with my colleague. I know his words are sincere when he talks about it being his first trip to the east coast.

It is a completely different fishery on the east coast than it is on the west coast. I know that it was very informative. What I think he understood, coming back from those hearings, was that the fishermen in the gulf and along the east coast understood fully that the longevity and the strength of that industry was based on sustainability and on conservation. They have taken incredible measures over the years to ensure the resources continue to provide them with a livelihood.

It has been a while since I worked on that report, but the year before the big downturn there had been an allocation, or an exploitation, rate set by the minister on the recommendation of the science that was received from DFO officials. The industry, the processors, felt they needed more product, so they made a plea to the minister at that time. She in turn increased the amount of quota.

Does the member think that—

[Workplace Safety, May 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago today, a spark deep in the southeast section of the Westray coal mine in Nova Scotia triggered a massive explosion that trapped and killed 26 miners. The force of the blast shattered windows and shook homes in nearby Stellarton and New Glasgow.

Today, we remember those miners who died needless deaths, deaths that were the result of greed, mismanagement and failed government oversight. Rescue teams and draegermen worked tirelessly in treacherous conditions in search of survivors. Their bravery and heroism captivated the nation and put the spotlight on worker safety and corporate accountability. Their efforts led Parliament, under the leadership of my former Liberal colleagues Martin Cauchon and Andy Scott, to unanimously pass the Westray bill.

The Westray bill was a positive step, but we are reminded today that more can and needs to be done to improve worker safety and corporate accountability in our country.

[Employment, May 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, jobs have been created. We have the Alberta tar sands and we know the way potash is going in Saskatchewan and the way development is. However, let us be truthful about this. Eighty per cent of the newly created jobs have been created in Saskatchewan, Alberta and, to a lesser degree, maybe Newfoundland. If there is any prosperity and any recovery, it is very focused and it is not because of the government but because of the natural resources that are being mined and processed in those particular areas.

I guess it is about those that are not in Alberta and Saskatchewan and Newfoundland right now. It is those who are working in seasonal economies. It is those Canadians who are having trouble paying their power bills and filling the oil tank. They find themselves out of work because they are in a seasonal industry. Is there any chance the government is going to recognize that these people are hard-pressed and that resources have to be placed so these people can be supported? All they want to do is get by and feed their families and be supported through some reinvestment in the public sector, so EI processing can take place in a reasonable period of time.

[Employment, May 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the chamber again a concern about job cuts at Service Canada. People who have lost their jobs and have been waiting for up to eight weeks for EI benefits will now see further disservice with the cuts in these processing jobs.

What compounds the problem is that the government has now made a bold statement indicating that it will reduce the turnaround time for labour market opinions so companies can bring in temporary foreign workers. Right now it takes about 120 days to process an LMO. These LMOs will be turned around in 10 days.

Therefore, Canadians who are out of work and who deserve benefits will be put aside so we can take workers in from other countries. Resources will be put toward workers from other countries so that the LMOs can be turned around in 10 days as opposed to 120 days. The government is focusing on that.

The Conservatives have indicated that changes will be made to the EI system. If a job opportunity becomes available, a person receiving benefits must take that job. For example, substitute teachers who are receiving benefits in anticipation of the upcoming year must take a job cutting lettuce in a farmer's field or baiting trawl on a wharf somewhere if such a job becomes available. Those teachers will need to take those jobs as opposed to receiving benefits while waiting for the upcoming year to start.

The government has indicated that front end services will not be touched, that only the back end operations will be touched. It is great to go to a restaurant and have somebody wait on us but we will be waiting a long time if there is nobody in the kitchen preparing the meal.

That is what we are faced with here. The government is saying that the front end will not be touched, and it is saying that with respect to veterans, EI processing and Service Canada positions. That seems to be the line coming out of the government's talking points.

I think members can sense my point. If we cut off the back end, it will not matter how good the front end might be because people will be hurt and it will be people on EI who deserve benefits but are not getting their claims processed on time.

Could the parliamentary secretary tell me where the resources to process those EI claims will come from? Will those Service Canada people be in competition with the people who will be providing labour market opinions? Will they be in competition with people who are trying to deliver on these new EI changes? Where will the resources come from?

[Points of Order, May 4th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, understanding and respecting the Standing Orders and traditions of the chamber, I know it is not proper and not accepted to make any reference to the whereabouts or absence of a particular member in the House. I would ask the Speaker to check Hansard on this. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment had referenced that I was commenting on the absence of a member from the House. When I spoke about the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry and the regional minister from P.E.I., it was about their absence on the file and the fact that people in their ridings were losing jobs, not any reference to their absence or physical whereabouts in the House.

[National Parks, May 4th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, she pats herself on the back. The Conservatives opened up a new park and provided no new money for it. They have to take funds for the operation of that park out of existing programs, which will further impact negatively on the current park inventory.

Where are the Tory backbenchers when there are cuts made to their communities? Where is the minister from P.E.I. who has jobs leaving the island like rats leaving a ship? Where is the member for Peterborough who is losing jobs? What about Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry—

[National Parks, May 4th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, perhaps my question should be directed to the Minister of Health, as the actions of the government really carve the heart out of the community in my riding.

In the cuts by Parks Canada to Louisbourg, St. Peter's and the Canso area, it is not only the 170 people who lost their jobs and their families. It is also those who depend on the tourism industry. This will cripple the tourism industry. Hotel owners, campground owners and restaurant owners will feel the pain.

These are reckless, senseless, stupid cuts. Why has the Conservative government turned its back on the national parks system?

[Workplace Safety, April 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, every day men and women in Canada risk their lives for their livelihood. In supporting themselves and their families, at least three people are killed on a daily basis with thousands more injured in the workplace annually. More often than not, these tragedies could have been prevented.

We must be vigilant in ensuring Canadians and foreign workers in Canada have access to the training and equipment they need to be safe on the job. Our workplaces above all else must be environments that foster safety for their workers, no matter the industry.

On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and our parliamentary caucus, I extend my deepest sympathies to the friends, families and colleagues who honour the loss of a loved one on this day, and I wish a quick recovery to all those who have been injured on the job.