Rodger Cuzner

[Service Canada, December 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, under the guise of finding efficiencies, the minister responsible for Service Canada has carved the guts out of her department. Part-time and casual workers are long gone and nearly 90 permanent employees who have left since July have not been replaced. Add to the backlog of calls that are already there 18,600 new unemployed Canadians this month, and we get a sense as to the backlog of work and the demand on Service Canada workers.

However, this minister has the gall to blame the workers. It is not the workers at Service Canada, it is the management, or should I say the mismanagement. When is someone on the government bench going to wake up and--

[November 30th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, reference was made to automation. When the officials appeared before us at committee, they identified that currently 99% of applications are filed online and 50% of the applications are processed electronically.

The Conservatives make reference to the amount of paper. I think that excuse is paper thin. As they continue to automate, the performance numbers have been going down and down to five- and six-year lows.

How is laying off 600 employees and closing the call centres and the processing centres which the Conservatives are looking at doing, going to improve service to unemployed Canadians? It is coming up to Christmas. The government should show a little bit of love.

[November 30th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my question in the adjournment proceedings this evening pertains to a question posed to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.

I am aware of the format for adjournment proceedings: I can speak for four minutes, and then the parliamentary secretary speaks for four minutes. She has five minutes in total, so I will give her the question now and then I will give her the preamble to the question.

The parliamentary secretary will have five minutes to come up with the right answer. When I asked her the other day, obviously the minister was totally unaware of the fact that the speed of payment indicator measured both the speed of issuing a cheque and of issuing a notice of nonpayment. The minister had no clue about that.

I want to ask the parliamentary secretary this question: once a notice of nonpayment is issued to somebody who has applied for employment insurance, does that notice start the clock all over again?

An unemployed individual filled out the application and went through the process, but the postal code was not the same on the application as it was on the record of employment. I want to ask specifically whether it is a fact that after the file is rejected and the person is issued a notice of nonpayment, that same individual then has to go four weeks without employment insurance because once the information is supplied, the clock starts again at day one.

The individual applied on October 1, but because there was some kind of mistake on the application, the computer rejected it. It got fixed up and was put back into the system. By that time it was the first or second week of November. It is a 28-day level of service, and the government says it can do it within 28 days, but in fact it is the second 28 days.

The minister almost separated her shoulder patting herself on the back the other day for getting cheques out in 28 days. It is pretty easy if we only measure 28 days at a time, but it is pretty tough if it is an individual's third 28-day rotation and that person has gone six, seven, eight weeks without a cheque. It is pretty tough to pay the bills with a notice of nonpayment.

The one question I pose is this: is it a fact that the clock is restarted after an applicant receives a notice of nonpayment?

[Employment Insurance Act, November 29th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to joining this debate. I was a little late and did not hear the entire speech of the presenter. He made reference to a couple of friendly amendments being proposed by the government. I have not had an opportunity to see those amendments, but I will see what kind of impact they would have on the legislation.

I come here with some skepticism. This bill would have an impact in very few instances. It would not have a far-reaching impact in the broader scheme of things. Certainly for the individuals on which it would have an impact, it would be a negative impact.

My friend is a long-time member of Parliament and is a very eloquent orator. During his speech he said that he did not think people would support prisoners receiving EI benefits. Members should know full well that prisoners currently do not receive EI benefits. That is not what this legislation is about. It is about eligibility. I want to ensure that we are debating exactly what is being put forward.

The jurisdictional split occurs at two years. If someone is going to prison for longer than two years, the sentence will be served in a federal institution, whereas a sentence of under two years will be served in a provincial institution. The current EI extension clause only benefits individuals who serve less than two years in jail. For those serving time in federal institutions, the legislation would not have an impact. The current EI extension clause for the most part only deals with individuals who are being released from non-federal prisons, those who are serving time in provincial institutions.

With respect to the suggestion that the two opposition parties are soft on crime, I think there is probably a little more in the messaging. That may be the skeptic in me thinking that way, but there is a bit more in the messaging in this piece of private member's legislation than what is fact.

According to the numbers for 2008-09, which are the numbers we had access to, there were 37,000 inmates in federal prisons. Of course, that number will go up considerably in the next number of years, even with the decrease in the crime rates in the country. There were 24,000 in the various provincial institutions across the country. Of those, 56% were on remand. They were not convicted criminals; they were on remand, waiting for trial or sentencing.

In many cases charges were dropped or persons were found to be innocent. We see variations of this. The vast majority were people waiting for trial. Of course, under the laws of this nation, those people would be considered innocent until proven guilty. This bill would disadvantage the people who are waiting for trial.

Three out of 10 cases were resolved by being stayed, withdrawn or dismissed. Another 3% of the cases resulted in acquittal of the accused, and 1% of the cases had other decisions. Thirty-three per cent of those cases would not result in a guilty verdict.

Some individuals charged with an offence can make bail, some cannot. Some are remanded because they cannot make bail. They may be innocent and waiting for an opportunity to prove their innocence, but because of their socio-economic situation, they are unable to post bail, so they find themselves incarcerated. This bill disadvantages those particular people.

In the omnibus justice bill that has been put through the House, the approach to justice issues is a step back for our nation. Although there has been a decrease in crime rates in this country, we are seeing a government propensity to grow the number of prison cells and to put people behind bars for longer periods of time.

We have seen that model unfold in Texas and in California. For the most part, California is bankrupt right now because of its approach to these justice issues. Some of the leading judicial minds in Texas are saying to Canada, “Do not do that; we have been there, done that and gotten the T-shirt, and we have the state debt to prove that it is not the way to go”.

The rates of recidivism have certainly not gone down. We see that repeat offenders become professional criminals once they are put into institutions and behind bars. That is the experience south of the border. That is what we have learned from that approach to dealing with crime south of the border.

A lot of these people come from fractured homes and are dealing with mental health issues and addiction issues. If they are behind bars, it is in our best interest as law-abiding citizens to try to help them. We need to try to help through education and by allowing them to grow as persons in understanding where they went wrong.

When these people are released, the single best thing that could happen is for them to come out as better and more understanding people, with a willingness and a desire to be better citizens. If we throw them out of jail and put them on their own without any great hope for employment or an income, we are doing them a huge disadvantage.

I like the way the law works now. The way the law works now makes sense. Simply, if someone opens up an EI claim and is eligible for 48 weeks of employment insurance, and then two weeks into that claim, when there are 46 weeks left, the person goes to jail, that person does not receive benefits while in jail. It may be a single mom who is trying to care for her kids and who perhaps has a delinquent husband who does not provide for them, and she gets caught stealing. We can name the scenario.

When she comes out of that institution, she is going to be cast back into poverty, but if, after that six months in jail, she is able to pick up those next 46 weeks of employment insurance, then as a nation and as Canadians we have done her a great service. It is not like winning the 6/49. I know that EI benefits have been referred to as very generous, but they are not very generous.

The scope of this bill is not large, and the number of people it impacts is not a huge number. After these people come out of incarceration, we can give them a chance so that they do not return to a life of crime and their families do not have to live in poverty.

I think the way the laws stand now makes sense and works. I will look at the friendly amendments being put forward by the government, but right now I think the rules as they stand serve all Canadians well.

[Employment Insurance, November 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has no clue. She talks about effectiveness and efficiencies but she should check her departmental statistics: speed of EI payment, worst rate in five years; EI call service level, worst performance in six years; average EI processing time, worst in the last five years; percentage of calls being hung up on, the highest in six years. When people call and press 2 to get an attendant, they actually have a better chance of being hung up on. Is this the minister's idea of efficiency and effectiveness?

We should be changing the name of Service Canada to no Service Canada because unemployed Canadians--

[Employment Insurance, November 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I still do not think she understands the situation. I asked her the question on the indicator and she had a Charlie Sheen moment, handing the wheel over to her deputy.

The speed indicator measures two things: the time it takes for the payment to be issued and the time it takes for notice of non-payment to be issued. It is tough putting oil in the tank and food in the fridge with a notice of non-payment.

The minister misrepresented that particular statistic as if everybody was getting a cheque in 23 days. Will the minister stand today, correct the record and tell us how long unemployed Canadians are—

[Employment Insurance, November 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, recently the Conservative government has shown a big appetite to change long-standing institutional names, so I might suggest one: changing the minister responsible for EI from “employment insurance” to “erroneous information” because last week, in the Charlottetown Guardian, she stated, inaccurately, regarding EI, “We are currently averaging 23 days for speed of the first payment”.

She now knows full well that what she said was totally untrue. Could she tell the House today how long it is taking people who are eligible for EI to get their first payment?

[Employment Insurance Act, November 22nd, 2011]

After 1997.

When I arrived here, I had certain preconceptions about employment insurance. It would be valuable for some of the new members if I give a bit of history about the changes that took place through the mid-1990s. There was a Liberal government in place that made fairly dramatic changes in the mid-1990s that sort of swung the pendulum out of favour with workers. The Auditor General had made a recommendation, because the EI fund had been bankrupt under the past Conservative governments. The Liberals put the money into a general fund. Changes had to be made to make sure that the fund was well established and well funded, and that the actuaries considered it a self-sustaining program.

Cuts had been made that disadvantaged a great number of workers. It worked for a fair number of people, but not for everybody. When I first got here, I thought that EI should be blown up and we should start again. However, once the books were balanced, budgets were surplused and reinvestments were made in social programs, we discovered that we could make changes to the system that would be of benefit to large numbers of people. The Liberal government was able to go back to the best 14 weeks. About 38% of EI recipients were impacted by that; that is a fair number of people who benefited.

The changes increased the amount of money people were able to earn while on benefits and working, the black hole. My thoughts had changed from blowing the whole program up to working hard to try to make changes that benefit the greatest number of Canadians who needed the help most.

This brings us to today's debate and the private member's bill put forward by my colleague from Bourassa. It is probably one of the most significant changes that we could make to the EI program and it would benefit the most vulnerable and needy Canadians now. Those are Canadians who, because of illness, find themselves not able to work. Their household incomes are impacted and sometimes eliminated. The changes that are being put forward by my colleague are right and positive and I hope will be embraced by the entire chamber.

We have seen a similar private member's bill. My colleague from Sydney--Victoria in the 38th Parliament put a similar bill forward, motivated by two of his staff: Darlene Morrison and Lindsay MacPhee. Service Canada employees have to deliver the news to people who are trying to recover from something catastrophic like a double lung transplant, or who are battling cancer, that their 15 weeks of EI sick leave has lapsed and they are no longer eligible for EI benefits.

That is a tough message to send to someone in that state. Mentally, physically, financially and emotionally, the stress on that person because of dire circumstances is substantial. Both Darlene Morrison and Lindsay MacPhee had health concerns and went through protracted periods of time where they faced substantial challenges with their health. They were off for extended periods and lived the reality of going without a paycheque. Fortunately they had other supports.

In the 38th Parliament, the legislation passed second reading and it went to committee. As my colleague from Sydney--Victoria sat before the finance committee, he had beside him the president of the Canadian Cancer Society and the president of the Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation. I sat in on the presentation that day and the testimony was powerful. I was moved by the support that the leaders of those two organizations offered for this change in the EI program.

They are not the only organizations. When we look over the years at the groups that have advocated for this, such as the CLC and the Building Trades Council, every major union has advocated for a change in EI because when their members experience health challenges, they know the hardship that it places not only on the members, but on their families.

My colleague from Bourassa made note of a petition that had been circulated about Marie-Hélène Dubé. If members want to read something that is inspirational but straightforward and addresses the reality, the information is online about the situation of this young mother who battled thyroid cancer.

I initially thought that an overall revamping of the EI system would best serve Canadians. In retrospect, in my experience here, we can make a difference in people's lives by supporting this private member's bill, this change in the EI regulations.

My time is almost up but I certainly want to commend the member for Bourassa for putting this important piece of legislation forward. My caucus colleagues and I look forward to supporting this piece of legislation when it comes up for a vote.

[Employment Insurance Act, November 22nd, 2011]

Madam Speaker, if I could be allowed half a minute, my mom is an avid watcher of the parliamentary channel and I have not seen her in three weeks. I want to remind her that it is Movember, and her pride and joy is doing this to raise money for prostate cancer, I want to make sure she makes her donation. My moustache is much nicer than my colleague's from Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

I want to commend my colleague from Bourassa for putting this bill forward. The class of 2000 celebrates its anniversary next week and I congratulate two Conservative colleagues across the way on their 11th anniversary. Some say it was probably one of the strongest classes to come to the House in many years.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, maybe some members in the chamber will not know this, and some people who may be watching at home as well, but my friend is a very accomplished Juno nominated songwriter and has written some fabulous songs. Crossin' the Causeway is one of my favourites. It is a great song.

The member would agree with me that one important aspect of songwriting is ensuring that when titling a song, the title should reflect something that is through the actual body of the song.

The title of this particular piece of legislation is “Keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act”. Because 40,000 fewer Canadians are working this month than last month, would my colleague agree that the government might have missed the target a bit with the title of this particular piece of legislation?