Rodger Cuzner

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I did not have an opportunity to hear all of the testimony during the course of the hearings that were held on the bill. However, at the meetings that I did attend, I was really taken by the lack of push-back by the gun lobby on it. I know that the chief of police in Calgary had said that he did not think it really served any purpose. Beyond that, he added that if we do have one, it should be provincial and there should be no charge for it. That is about as aggressive testimony as I heard during the sessions I attended.

I did hear a lengthy list of witnesses, such as the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, the Police Association of Nova Scotia, the Nova Scotia Chiefs of Police Association, and medical health experts, including the Canadian Medical Association, suicide prevention agencies and transition homes, all of whom stood and said, yes, there is a good purpose for the registry.

To quote the former leader of the Bloc, Gilles Duceppe, a party that I do not really quote a lot, he made a good point in this particular case. He said that it costs a lot upfront, but it is like renovating a house: if the costs go over budget, we do not burn the house down.

Would my colleague agree that by casting the information aside, the government in this case is really scorching the earth with it?

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as the debate continues, it is important that we get to the truth and the nub of the debate.

Earlier there were comments made by members that there was no testimony with regard to the impact the registry has had on suicide rates. I would like to read into the record some testimony and get a comment from the member. The Quebec suicide prevention association told the committee that the long gun registry, combined with licensing of owners and safe storage regulations, has been associated with a dramatic reduction in the number of gun deaths, on average 255 suicides and 50 homicides annually. That information was gleaned from a study that was done by the Quebec public health institute.

I wonder if the member from the government side understands that the gun registry was never intended to stop gangs. That is a lot of Canadian lives, 255 suicides and 50 other gun-related deaths, that the association believes were reduced by the gun registry.

Does the member not agree that that has had a tremendous impact?

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we hear in every government presentation that the legislation is designed to make rural gun owners criminals for non-compliance.

Would the Conservatives share one simple statistic with the House, with Canadians and with anyone following this debate. How many Canadians have been convicted of non-compliance with the gun registry? How many criminals have we made?

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the debate today there have been some comments made by government members that the gun registry will not stop gang violence. No, it will not stop gang violence. I do not think it was ever believed that it could stop gang violence. However, it has had an impact on suicides. My colleague from Yukon argued that there was no testimony given. I did not sit on the committee but I sat in on a great number of witness presentations, and I am positive that the Canadian Mental Health Association attributed a decrease of 300 suicides annually because of the registry.

An individual tells his doctor that he has lost his job, lost his wife and is in debt up to his ears, that he has a gun at home and something will happen. That was the testimony we heard. The police are alerted and they take the gun out of that situation. The witnesses attributed a decrease of 300 suicides annually because of that.

Another statistic that has stood out is that, over the past decade, 71% of spousal homicides involved rifles or shotguns. As of 2009, the rate of homicides with rifles and shotguns has decreased by 62% from 1989.

How would Canadians be safer with the cancellation of the gun registry?

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is good news. From my remarks I would hope that the member for Sault Ste. Marie would never think the Liberal Party is against foreign investment.

We are not against corporate tax cuts either. There is a time and a place for corporate tax cuts, but I do not think it is the time and place for those when the government is running a $45 billion deficit. Certainly, when we were in a position to offer corporate tax cuts, we did.

Foreign investment is something we welcome as long as there are provisions and parameters to protect Canadian interests, technologies, jobs and communities. I think that is in everyone's best interest. Hopefully the motion today will move the government to look at this 35-year-old legislation so that Canadian interests will be protected.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, a similar question was posed in the House today and I would like to read it back into the record. In the wake of “the government's about face on foreign investment in potash more than a year ago, the former minister of Industry promised a new policy, a definition of “net benefit”, greater transparency, enforceable conditions, quick remedies, reciprocity and commercial behaviour by state enterprises”. However, the new Minister of Industry no longer subscribes to that view. It strikes me as a little strange that a year and a half ago the government seemed to grasp and understand this.

We believe in investment and we believe in foreign investment. However, I think there has to be a set of conditions applied here so that Canadian jobs and technology do receive some type of protection.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join in the debate today on the NDP motion. The principle and intent of the motion is something that our party has no problem supporting. Hopefully, the way it is presented is seen by the government as a call to action.

It has been a strange day of debate. When we come to the House and wrestle with any particular issue, it is a political environment. When we look at what is taking place, with the severity of the closures and loss of jobs in both the plant in London and at Papiers White Birch, we would hope that the debate would rise above political rancour and that we would deal with what we could do better as a country to ensure Canadians would not lose jobs.

Nobody in the House wants to see Canadians lose their jobs. The political parties may have a different approach and a difference sense as to how best to ensure that most Canadians are able to work on a steady basis, provide for their families and grow in their communities.

The situation is London is not foreign to me. We had a plant close down just recently in Port Hawkesbury, the NewPage pulp and paper operation. It was a little different situation. It was owned by an American company and the operation in the Port Hawkesbury area was actually profitable. It made both newsprint and super calendar paper, the glossy paper used in catalogues and high end magazines. The mother company in Wisconsin filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy and subsequently we lost the operation in Port Hawkesbury. It was truly unfortunate.

There were 600 jobs there, plus wood lot owners and spinoff jobs. The real sad part is those who were receiving pensions and approaching pension age lost their pensions. The pension at that particular plant was underfunded. I know the regulation of pensions is a provincial responsibility and it would fall under the realm of the province of Nova Scotia. Hopefully, the province of Nova Scotia will embark on a full review of the regulatory regime to ensure that if there are closures in the future, and inevitably there will be, that those pension plans are fully funded. They need to have enough in them so people who work in those industries, after working for 25 or 35 years, when it comes time to retire they will have what they planned and hoped to draw as a pension. That is the reality we face.

The situation in London is obviously different. When we see a company like Caterpillar reporting record profits, when its senior management and shareholders all benefited from record sales over the last number of years and when the revenue lines at the corporation continued to grow, we would have hoped that it would be able to share some of that success with its employees, and they were unionized employees.

One that did not make sense was Papiers White Birch. We knew that company was trouble. We knew the newsprint industry had certainly fallen off over the last number of years, and it had asked the workers to make concessions. It was a completely different set of circumstances in London. The business was in good shape, the company was making money, yet it asked its workforce to take a 50% reduction in wages. When the negotiations were going nowhere, the company locked the workers out and inevitably shut the plant down. Based on that decision, those jobs are going south to Indiana.

It is not just the loss of jobs but the loss of the technology as well. Much of that technology was developed here in Canada. It was developed over a number of years through incentive programs that prior companies would have benefited from, programs that were put forward by Liberal governments. Certainly the companies benefited from the approach on tax reduction. The workers did not benefit much, but the companies benefited from the tax approach the current government embarked on.

The loss of the technology, the loss of the jobs is certainly a devastating situation for those directly impacted. However, even more broadly, these are not just jobs for individuals but good-paying jobs within the community, jobs that certainly have spin-off effects. This will be felt all the way through that community.

I am a little disappointed with the response from some of the government speakers. The couple that have been up today have done infomercials, saying what they have done for the people of London. They talked about investments in parks and here, there and everywhere. That is unfortunate because the intent of this going forward is to help Canadian industry so that we can continue to grow the jobs here in Canada. When government members dismiss it as just a labour dispute, I think that is a disservice to the debate taking place here today.

There was a comment made that this particular deal, this particular acquisition, did not meet the threshold that would trigger an ICA review. Maybe that is something we should be looking at, whether or not the threshold is too high or too low. That is something that should be brought forward and discussed, and it could be looked at in committee.

Whatever the government might say, one thing for sure is that there are still 450 people out of work in London as a result. The jobs and technology have just moved south. No matter what the government says, that is the reality of the situation.

I would hope that the government would see the sense in this motion and maybe support it. We know that this problem has been identified before. We can look at what transpired over a year ago in Saskatchewan with the potash situation there. We know that at the time the then-minister, who is currently President of the Treasury Board, said that the situation warranted a full review of the act by a parliamentary committee. That is what he had promised at that time.

The act is 35 years old. Certainly the economy has changed. The business world has changed. Where we are as a nation has changed. After 35 years, it should be reviewed. The then-minister had committed to that at the time. Since then, he has done nothing. The current minister is saying “No, the legislation as it stands is adequate”.

We are not going to solve all of the problems here in the debate today, but there is one thing that I hope this debate will do. The government has the full intellectual horsepower of the bureaucracy, the federal bureaucrats. Hopefully it will be able to tap them to come up with some type of a plan or strategy that would make sense, so that going forward Canadian jobs and technology will be protected, so that we will not see this happening again to these workers, communities and industries.

I hope the government supports the motion today and sees it as a call to action so that we can get some movement and some action on this particular issue.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is almost like that old shtick by Johnny Carson of the great Houdini who had the answer to the question before he knew what the question was all about so that we could read that answer. It is a great shtick. It worked for Johnny for years.

I do not think for one minute that any Conservative takes a great deal of joy in seeing people put out of work. I thought that the intervention by my friend from London West was an insightful and fair presentation which gave his side of this particular situation.

However, after listening to the last speaker, it is apparent that this debate has just morphed into a political partisan attack. With respect to the impact on the community of London and those workers, the purpose of today's debate should be about what the Government of Canada can do to make sure that an American multinational company does not trade its operation here in Canada, act like a bunch of thugs and leave the country. I do not see what a partisan attack like that contributes to this particular debate.

Although I am sure the member has a prepared answer for this question because she knew what the question would be, I would ask other members of the government to try to contribute something to this debate for the good of Canadian workers.

[Copyright Modernization Act, February 8th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, from the Liberal Party's perspective, the success of our artists has long been attributed to a regulatory regime that has recognized the creator, whether that be visual artists, creative artists, writers, singers or songwriters. There has always been the ability for remuneration.

We continue to hear concerns from creators as to whether this legislation would, in fact, hang them out to dry. Are we making it more difficult for them to earn a living and continue to pursue a dream and a career? Could the member offer some kind of assurance that those provisions are within this legislation?

[Employment, February 3rd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am looking at a picture of the Prime Minister in a locomotive in London, Ontario, and he is waving. He must be waving to the 450 employees who were just let go when the plant was shut down there.

It is like Groundhog Day. The minister over there saw her shadow yesterday, so for the next six weeks we will get the same spin, the same talking points, the same drivel.

We cannot feed our families on that. Would the minister please give us something other than baloney? People are hurting and those on that bench over there do not care.