Twitter
Facebook
VideosMay
- MP
libMay 17, 2012 12:10 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—WindsorMr. Speaker, this is on a different point of order. This morning between 10:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., during questions and comments on the pooled pension plan debate, I started off my speech with, not a direct insult but an inferred one, to my colleague, the member forBurlington. Whether I agree with him or not is irrelevant. He did not deserve the inferred insult that I put out there.
I would like to apologize to him and to the House for that.
- MPlibMay 17, 2012 7:40 am | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Madam Speaker, speaking of tools, I want to talk about RRSPs. The member is right, they are a tool. When we consider the whole package of retirement funds, I agree that this pooled pension plan is one of the tools in the shed that is certainly of good benefit for many, but not really a lot.
If we are talking about doing a lot of heavy lifting with a shovel, what the member is armed with here today is a very large spoon. There is no doubt that it does its work. The problem is, when he talks about pooling the purchasing of paper to bring costs down, not everybody is buying paper. Therefore, I would suggest to him that, in addition to this, maybe he should look at using that CPP investment board that he spoke of as a voluntary option to supplement the current mandatory CPP payments. This would be a vehicle, another tool in the shed.
- MPlibMay 16, 2012 12:25 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, last week there was a demonstration in my riding, in the town of Eastport on the Eastport Peninsula.
Several people were protesting for action to be taken with regard to search and rescue by both the provincial and federal governments for fully operational search and rescue assets to be retained in Labrador.
These constituents of mine are from Glovertown, Happy Adventure, Eastport and also Salvage.
- MPlibMay 15, 2012 10:40 am | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat inspired to get up after hearing the hon. member for Edmonton. It almost seems like it is a black and white situation. We have a situation where he says that there will always be people against these sorts of measures. Of course there will be, but they have absolutely zero recourse.
Let us take a look at the education exemption as a fine example. We have a blanket exemption across the board. What if authors feel the education exemption is being exploited so their work is not being sold in the market? It would take away the ability of authors to sell their products. A multi-step test for the courts to decide whether an author has been infringed upon is the way to go. The government would not even entertain it. That person has been written off as far as any concerns the author may have. This is not a way of listening to the people opposed to this.
- MPlibMay 14, 2012 2:30 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, Canadian research chair, Michael Geist has suggested that an easy way to fix this would be to amend the bill to make it okay to circumvent a digital lock if the purposes for which a lock is circumvented are lawful. Let us quote Mr. Geist fully. Let us talk about the fact that he found a fundamental flaw that the Conservatives were not willing to address.
In this situation, my question is this. If other countries saw fit to make changes about circumventing these locks under circumstances such as education, why did we not do the same? Why is that such a bad thing in certain circumstances?
- MPlibMay 14, 2012 2:00 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, that begs the question as to why the Conservatives prorogued the House a couple of years if that were the case.
I have a question for the member that requires only a yes or no answer.
I will use the example of a classroom that has a particular piece, like a movie, to play for the sake of education and the movie is digitally locked and it is unable to play it. Let us say that it goes around that lock and plays the movie anyway. Even though it is in the classroom, would that be an infringement, yes or no?
- MPlibMay 14, 2012 1:55 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, I am going to stick to that same point of order. I am assuming the member is going to get around to the copyright bill again, right?
- MPlibMay 14, 2012 1:50 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, this has come up quite a bit.
The Conservatives say we are being too alarmist, but I do not think we can be too alarmist in this case. Even if the Conservatives are right in saying that notes would not be taken away to be burned and one would not be thrown in jail, even if we do not go to that extent, it is still a serious concern.
Education is a lifelong endeavour and one tends to keep materials for quite some time, especially those in long-distance education, in rural areas, first nations, and such places. We would always want to give them the right to have the material to use forever because it is a lifelong process.
In this case I think it is particularly onerous. However, again, we go back to where a few technical amendments certainly would have made it easier to digest if some of this material could stay with the particular student without allowing harm to happen to the particular artist or creator.
In creating something, balance is an ongoing measure. It is not black and white, which seems to be what is coming out of this legislation. It is something that has to be looked at. If there is a grey area, a court has to have some guidance from legislators to find out what it is it should look for in balancing between the creator and a person being able to keep material for the sake of his or her own learning.
- MPlibMay 14, 2012 1:45 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is a pertinent one. When we look at the stakeholder reaction to this, it was wide and extensive. It came from an assortment of groups, including consumers.
When we talk about consumers, we are essentially talking about the fair dealing process. What I mean by fair dealing is people being able to use material for the sake of parity, for example, news clips, in that particular way.
The overriding measures of digital locks and TPMs are really getting to the core of consumer rights in this situation. By way of illustration, as I brought up earlier, we now have the right to take a piece of music or a movie and share it among our devices, but if it is locked, we cannot do that.
On the one hand the consumer is given the right, but on the other hand the government is allowing the business model of a large corporation to take it away.
- MPlibMay 14, 2012 1:35 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is now at report stage after years of debate. One of the things that we keep saying about this copyright bill and its predecessors, in the form of Bill C-32 and before that in 2004-05, is that times change. Technology changes swiftly. The first time I spoke about this legislation in the House was in 2005 when Twitter and Facebook did not exist. They were not part of the popular culture by any stretch.
As a result of technology changing all the time, we find ourselves in a position where sometimes the argument varies. We have been debating this issue for 10 or 15 years. The last time amendments were made was in 1997. Because of the shifting sands and the scope of the argument that we are making, we should be debating this quite often. The debate today will take a different form than what it would have been five or six years ago.
Modernizing the Copyright Act should stand the test of time. It is essential that it be neutral and balanced. It should also be flexible enough in that it can apply to the many technologies that are with us today and will be in the future. These include social media, technologies in the education field, including books, digital or not, and the dissemination of any type of information for profit. In the artistic world, this includes works of art such as songs or movies. My hon. colleague brought up the video gaming industry. That is a prime example of how we need good laws on the books in order for it to protect its property.
All the stakeholders that have been mentioned generally support the bill but they also say that it needs to be changed, that amendments need to be made. No major changes were proposed within the committee structure. That is unfortunate because there seems to be some legitimate claims to this. I will give the House the illustration that I spoke about in my question earlier.
Take the education exemption. Material used for the purpose of education is exempted from copyright. That in and of itself any Canadian would understand. Any person in the world would understand that copyright material can be used to build upon education.
Artists and others base their work on someone else's work. There is nothing wrong with that. That is the whole point of being involved in the world of music and movies. There is nothing new under the sun so therefore we must protect some of this at its core.
When it gets to the point where someone's art or someone's creation is exploited, allowing people to generate money from hard work by someone else, without adding anything to it, without fundamentally changing it and building upon his or her own artistic merits, then we have problems. That is where this legislation comes in.
Let us take a look again at that education exemption. As a result of it being such a blanket exemption, a lot of issues will have to be determined by the courts to see whether the law is being broken. Sometimes there could be a situation in education where someone is breaking the law. Material is being taken and is not only being used for classroom purposes, but it is being dispersed to a wider field. That work is therefore being exploited for profit, or the ability of that piece of work to make a profit is being diminished, and it is quite obvious.
Witnesses told us that we could put in a multi-step test. Even though there is a blanket exemption on education, as responsible people, as legislators, as lawmakers, we could take the material before a court. A judge could look at it and put it to a test. If people feel that a university has used their material to affect their ability to make a profit, it should be put to the test: does it fulfill the requirements of one to six options? Many jurisdictions around the world have done this. There is just no test in the middle between blanket exemption and copyright infringement. There is nothing wrong with putting a filter there to see if it could work. Otherwise the courts will have to decide.
Let us look at another example of Bill C-11. If we look at the logic of it, we have to try to understand why it was written this way, without certain limitations and without certain ways of looking at the unforeseen.
Many jurisdictions around the world went through the same process before we did. They put digital locks or technical protection measures in place and said, “that is that, we will be fine, there are no exemptions to it”. If we digitally lock something, that is it.
However, jurisdictions like the United States of America, New Zealand and Australia realize that we end up roping some of the laws we have placed into our own legislation. Here is an example. Within Bill C-11, if people download a song, they have the right to share this piece of music among other ways of listening. They could listen to it on an iPod or they could download it from iTunes and put it on to a CD. How do they listen to a piece of music that they purchased? They have bought a piece of music that they should be allowed to share. However, if a company, such as Apple, decides to digitally lock it, the music cannot be shared among one's other devices.
If I downloaded a book that was digitally locked, I could not transport it to the new iPad I bought, because I went from a reader that was built years ago. I could not transfer it because of digital locks. According to the law, I should be able to do so. I could get an app that converts it, but the problem is, the right to convert now belongs, not to the people of Canada, not to the government, not to this legislature, but to Apple. I do not mean to specifically pick on Apple. It could be Microsoft or it could be any other corporation.
We need to look at measures by which we could circumvent this when it comes to education. For example, a teacher might get a movie to show the English as a second language class. What if it is digitally locked for the particular player the teacher has?
We have not specifically looked at what I would consider to be sound amendments in this legislation, like the multi-step process. The multi-step process has to specify that even though there is an exemption involved and it is being used in a classroom setting, by putting it out widely among the public, we are basically cutting into the profit of someone who has copyright of the material. That is a question we need to be asking. That is the fair balance that we feel should be looked at. The committee heard from many witnesses, but very few changes, if any, were made. Nothing was changed in the legislation.
I think that international pressure probably came to bear and the Conservatives had to put something out, in light of the situation in the United States or even the European Union.
- MPlibMay 14, 2012 1:05 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, one of the things I find troubling with this, which I think my colleague for Timmins—James Bay alluded to, is the consultation process where, at first glance, the numbers present what the Conservatives consider to be a fair way to go about this. However, let us look at some of the facts which could be easily rectified, but are not in the bill.
First and foremost, let us look at the education exemption. I have a direct question and a scenario that maybe the member could address.
If a financial institution like a bank decides to educate its employees, would that fall under the exemption as well, or is it just for other institutions?
- MPlibMay 10, 2012 2:25 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, I find it quite amusing that the basis by which the Minister of Finance received this award was because of things like a strong banking system, good fiscal structures and that sort of thing, set down prior to when he arrived, which was certainly around the time of Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien.
To say that the current Minister of Finance is the best finance minister is like Milli Vanilli winning a Grammy, for goodness sake. That too was based on someone else's work.
- MPlibMay 10, 2012 2:05 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, the member talked about EI and the way it would fundamentally change by moving people who are on EI into that permanent workforce. I would like to paint for him a scenario and perhaps he can respond with yes or no on how this would work.
Let us assume for a moment that we have a seasonal worker, say in Newfoundland and Labrador, who claims EI for part of the year but the other part of the year works at a fish plant making a wage of between $15 and $20 per hour. The person has been doing this seasonal work for about 20 or 25 years and this fish plant is the mainstay of this particular community. Will that person be forced to work at a local retail outlet in a job that pays half the wage but is full-time not seasonal? Would that person be pushed, encouraged or forced to go from that fish plant to the retail outlet?
- MPlibMay 10, 2012 1:55 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, that was really good. How is that for a profound speech on an afternoon like this?
Members keep bugging me about doing the weather. For the record, I decided to leave the weather business. I got tired of lying for a living, so I got into politics. I am going to get angry emails from meteorologists; I appreciate that.
Nonetheless, we are talking about the budget. I get a lot of calls. I am inundated with calls on income security from seniors.
The pattern is very simple: it is that they are struggling to stay above the poverty line with a combination of old age security and GIS payments. A lot of them still live in larger homes that are difficult to heat. The extra money being put into the OAS program, of course, is not sufficient to cover the costs of things such as rising heat prices or gas for their cars in case they need them to get to the hospital or visit their families.
I would like my colleague to comment on two things. First, how is raising the age from 65 to 67 going to affect seniors? Second, how much of an extra burden is this change going to place on the provinces, which have to provide those social welfare services to help these people cope with extreme poverty?
- MPlibMay 10, 2012 1:40 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the comment about the Minister of Finance, he is the finance minister who actually put us into a deficit before the recession.
Perhaps the member would like to comment on that.
- MPlibMay 10, 2012 12:45 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, the member points out the badness of what is being considered. He mentioned 2¢ or 2.5¢ a litre on gas and the effect that would have on the average consumer.
In 2008, the government promised to reduce diesel by 2¢. What happened to that?
- MPlibMay 10, 2012 11:40 am | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the issue of search and rescue, based on what we have just heard in the House. This is a serious issue, especially for the Rideout family.
Mr. Speaker, picture yourself in the north Atlantic, 130 km out, with no presence of the Government of Canada to help you out.
Here is an email that was discovered by the media. I would like to ask the minister to respond to this, specifically. “Effective May 7, MCTS centres in Newfoundland and Labrador region shall use CIRM Roma for all radio medicals.” That is from the regional director of maritime services, Canadian Coast Guard.
What does the minister have to say to that? First of all, apologize to the Rideout family. Second of all, reopen these centres in St. John's and Quebec City.
- MPlibMay 09, 2012 2:05 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question to the hon. member regarding the crab situation.
Over the past several years, we have had a drastic reduction in a vital area of the crab fishery known as 3K. In that area, science has given us what we feel is not a substantial amount of information, yet drastic decisions were taken based on very small amount of science in the 3K area I talked about, and in several other areas on the east coast of this country.
I was wondering if the hon. member could comment. The way we are heading in terms of science and research is that we are basing it over a longer period of time, and it is not only that: the money is just not available.
How can we focus and get the government to say that more importance needs to be given to this particular situation on the east coast, especially when it comes to the snow crab species?
- MPlibMay 08, 2012 2:00 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague, as a former minister herself, regarding the environment.
With all the regulations throughout this legislation that would be amended, they take up basically one-third of a very large document in what the Conservatives are doing here. Obviously, the rhetoric is that they want to make it easier for business and economic growth. However, all of these regulations have been built up over decades, or even longer in the case of protecting habitats. I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that, please.
- MPlibMay 08, 2012 1:15 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Madam Speaker, I am not as convinced about the input stage. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons came to my riding and did not have one public meeting. He had a couple of meetings with the councils. The one issue that was brought up predominantly got very little attention whatsoever after the debate. I will reserve that for now.
The member said in a question earlier that his government took precautions to weather the storm of the recession. Why is it that the Conservatives put this country in a deficit position before the recession came?
- MPlibMay 08, 2012 7:05 am | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
What is the date, time, location, and nature of all government business conducted by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Queen’s Privy Council from May 18, 2011 to March 15, 2012, not including any activity that would be considered a cabinet confidence?
- MPlibMay 07, 2012 12:30 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
With regard to the proposed Muskrat Falls hydro-electric development: (a) who conducted the economic analysis of the project for or on behalf of the government; (b) when was this analysis (i) started, (ii) completed, (iii) submitted to the government; (c) has the analysis been publicly released; (d) if the analysis has not been publicly released, (i) why not, (ii) when will it be publicly released; (e) if the analysis was conducted on behalf of the government by a third party, (i) who conducted it, (ii) on behalf of which department or agency was it conducted, (iii) what was the total cost of the analysis, (iv) was the contract for the analysis awarded on the basis of competitive bid or was it sole-sourced; and (f) what were the risks and uncertainties identified in the course of the analysis?
- MPlibMay 07, 2012 11:35 am | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, as we have just witnessed from members' denial and distraction, the Conservatives seem to be tripping over themselves once again over the election fraud scandal. It seems now that their strategy is completely collapsing.
We know that the IP address used by Pierre Poutine leads right back to the Conservative campaign, calls by a Conservative in the national war room are being investigated and they have sourced the lists to the Conservative database.
When will the government drop its denial and distraction and call a royal commission on this?
- MPlibMay 07, 2012 10:30 am | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to a lot of talk about Manitoba. I am not sure if this is the right forum to get into arguing about the Government of Manitoba. One either wants to be an opposition member in Manitoba or a government member here. Therefore, I will stick to the budget that we are dealing with in this House as we talk about Bill C-38, and I have a very quick question.
A section in the legislation amends the Salaries Act to abolish the Public Appointments Commission that the Conservatives so excitedly brought in. I was wondering why they would do that.
- MPlibMay 07, 2012 9:35 am | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, yes, that was not very nice.
- MPlibMay 07, 2012 9:30 am | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Davenport for bringing that forward. I did not get to that part of my speech about the time allocation part. The member touched upon the key component of that, which is to say that the Conservatives argue that a lot of this was debated in the past. At what point in the eight years I have been here did we have a serious discussion about raising the age of OAS eligibility from 65 to 67?
It did not happen. I do not recall evidence being brought forward in this House or any committee that shows this is a necessary action to, in their words, save the system.
The Conservatives talk about downloading to the provinces. Moving the age from 65 to 67 is going to download a huge amount of money to the provinces, but of course, as they say, we are not to worry as it does not affect us. However, they forget to say that this affects our children.
The time allocation part is a sad mistake because of the very essence of this particular document that pertains to, as the member said, so many things that to call it “omnibus” is an understatement. Not only did the Conservatives do that, but they also invoked time allocation.
- MPlibMay 07, 2012 9:20 am | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be here once again. After closing in on eight years of being in the House, I am standing to talk once again about how to deal with another budget and how we had hoped at some point to decipher this particular document and see how we can elevate debate within the House of Commons.
I would like to congratulate my colleague from Edmonton—Leduc, who did a fine job speaking to the bill. I do not necessarily agree with everything he said, but nonetheless he presented very well and always has.
In 2005 the Government of Canada signed new offshore agreements with two provinces regarding three pieces of legislation: the Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic accord and accords with the province of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.
The federal government had worked out an agreement between the provinces to the satisfaction of both Premier John Hamm and Premier Danny Williams. The government proposed something on the order of a large payment up front and beyond that new calculations within the formula regarding equalization. The point was that as Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador were getting back on their feet, the clawbacks were really putting them back to where they were before, and the provinces wanted to be the principal beneficiaries of their resources.
In 2005 those agreements were included in a document similar to this, the budget of Prime Minister Paul Martin. I was sitting across the way, just behind the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's, and I remember my colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador and the member for South Shore--St. Margaret's vehemently arguing for the Atlantic accord agreements to be taken out of the budget. They said they did not belong there. It was an omnibus bill, and they said it was trickery, tomfoolery. They said the government should not be doing this and that the agreements should be discussed in the House by themselves.
Let us fast-forward to 2012 and look at this budget document. It is a big document, and it contains a lot. One-third of it is about making fundamental changes to environmental assessments.
We can also talk about the fact that this document fundamentally changes many aspects of the governance of this country, including old age security and even the Fisheries Act, which is important to the area I come from because it has major fishing industries.
We are talking about making a unilateral change to the funding of Canadian health care. We are talking about tearing up 100,000 immigration applications that have been worked on for years. We are talking about sweeping changes to employment insurance. All of this is contained in this one document.
People across this country are crying for some of this to be taken out and debated in the House separately. Not only are academics, experts, provincial politicians, provincial bureaucrats and former federal bureaucrats asking for some of this to be taken out of the budget: some Conservatives have said it themselves. It is funny how time tends to change things in the House.
Rather than lecturing the Conservatives about practising what they used to preach, let us talk about Bill C-38 and some of the concerns about it. I will admit that I would entertain some of the stuff in the bill. I look at some of the things as being positive moves forward, but the problem is I only have one vote.
Any time members want to ask me about some of the positive provisions in the bill, I am willing to talk about them. Unfortunately I only get 10 minutes and I have far less time to talk about the negative stuff, but I just cannot help myself, as members can gauge from the laughter across the House. They too are waiting for me to move on to the negative stuff.
The government is talking about moving the old age security benchmark from 65 years of age to 67. The OECD, Canada's chief actuarial officer, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and even the government's own experts agree that the change is not necessary because Canada's OAS program is already sustainable.
I get very many calls from people in my riding on this particular issue, telling me the response they get is only, “Well, don't worry; it's not going to affect you in the short term. It's just going to affect your children or grandchildren, that's all. No need to worry.”
We also want to talk about the departmental cuts that were announced and the layoff of 19,200 federal public servants. On the surface, people might say it is a good cost-cutting measure to cut the number of public servants so that the government can put us in line to control the deficit.
However, here is the issue. The Conservatives are going about it in a way that is not smart and that is certainly not achieving good government services.
In the smallest communities of this country, people are asking, “Where is the Government of Canada? It just doesn't exist anymore.” The only thing that exists is a flag flying above the post office, a crown corporation.
Service Canada cuts in my riding are going to be severe. Processing jobs in smaller communities are now being moved to larger communities. Where is the sense in that? These are jobs that can be done from anywhere.
Granted, the Conservatives want to get inefficiencies out of the system, and I appreciate that. However, this is not an efficient way of providing government services to our smallest communities. The government prides itself on providing good benefits to rural Canada, but the services are just not there. We are going in the opposite direction.
Just today a rally started in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, probably about 25 minutes ago, to save the marine rescue sub-centre, a centre that the government is closing. We never received any indication that it was a duplicate service or that this service could be covered by what is going on in Nova Scotia at the JRCC complex there. Now we find ourselves putting safety at risk up there. I personally think public safety is at risk.
The calls to reverse the decision have gone unanswered and were actually turned down, in the case of the regional minister for Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly the MP for Labrador.
It raises the question of quick decisions that were not thought through, yet when evidence is put forward that the decision was not a right one and that perhaps we should reflect upon that decision, it is met with absolute denial. It is met with indifference when we say to the government that there are a lot of sections in this bill that should be brought out, discussed and put through the appropriate committee, especially the environmental stuff, as my colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, will attest.
It is unbelievable. The preamble summaries describe something different from what is contained within the text of this particular legislation.
The environmental assessment that we discuss in here, through the fisheries department especially, should be brought through the environmental committee and vetted through that. One-third of this document pertains to that aspect.
I am sure the question will arise, and I have no issue with achieving economic development beneficial to people who have the skills and knowledge to do this type of work, whether it be pipelines, oil and gas, or in the mining industry. However, due diligence is called for. In this particular case, it is sadly missing.
Now, as time closes in, I want to talk about the final part, which is the employment insurance part of it.
Some of the positive aspects include the maintaining of the best weeks part this program, in this case variable best weeks, and the pilot project extended from 2005.
The problem is that the government is trying to get more work generated by this new committee. The government now will have the ability to force people into a situation of having to move halfway across the country, or at least that is what we assume is going to happen.
Unfortunately, the government will not hear of juxtaposing EI with economic development, but in certain cases, in order for smaller communities to reopen a closed plant, this approach does not work.
We have to look at this and realize and get the right information as to why the smallest of communities would suffer from this type of change.
I want to thank the House for allowing me this small opportunity to discuss this in the House. I wish we had more time.
- MPlibMay 07, 2012 9:15 am | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the job situation in Newfoundland. He also mentioned the job situation in his own riding and said that access to labour is a major issue.
I would like to get the member's comments on the impending changes to the Employment Insurance Act requiring people either to work in certain areas or having to give up their benefits at that time.
There is a plant in Port Union in my riding. It will take some time to get a new buyer for this plant if a new buyer does decide to buy the plant. Here is the issue. If the impending changes force people to move in that particular area, the issue of accessing labour becomes moot. It becomes less of a selling point for that particular plant.
I understand the original hypothesis as to why the government would want to do this, but in the end, for places like Port Union or Newfoundland outports, it could work against it.
- MPlibMay 03, 2012 3:00 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in the House today to talk about this issue of great importance. I want to congratulate my hon. colleague, who is new to the House, for bringing this forward. It is always nice to see members bring their private members' bills into this particular place to argue and debate. One of the greatest acts we can do as parliamentarians is to bring our own legislation into the House. I congratulate him for doing that.
By way of background, Bill C-307 is an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, which would allow pregnant or nursing employees in the circumstances of a preventive withdrawal and working for a federally regulated business to opt out of the Employment Insurance Act and receive benefits under the provincial regime. At the present time, this would only create equity between pregnant and nursing employees in Quebec working for federally regulated businesses or not. Quebec would be the only province benefiting from the provisions of the bill since other provinces rely on the Employment Insurance Act to obtain compensation.
However, the bill contains a provision in the eventuality that other provinces would want to mirror Quebec's regime and create a compensation scheme in the case of preventive withdrawals. Indeed, pursuant to subsection 132.1(5) of the bill, the Minister of Labour can enter into an agreement with the government of a province or its agent to determine the administrative and financial implications of certain measures. A province could probably refuse to enter into such an agreement because of the costs related to implement such a regime and since the provinces outside of Quebec have been relying for numerous years on the Employment Insurance Act for compensation for pregnant and nursing women in the circumstances of a preventive withdrawal from work.
The bill entirely mirrors the provisions of Bill C-380, which was an act to amend the Canada Labour Code for pregnant or nursing employees, that was tabled in 2005, in the first session of the 38th Parliament, by a member of the Bloc Québécois, Robert Vincent. At the time, the NDP and Conservatives voted in favour of the bill and, of course, the Liberals voted against it.
Taking a look at the Canada Labour Code, under subsection 132 of the code, a pregnant or nursing employee who is subject to the code may apply to be reassigned to another position if her work constitutes a danger to herself or her child. If the worker cannot be reassigned by the employer to another job, the employee can obtain leave without pay under the code. Compensation will then be granted under the Employment Insurance Act or the collective agreement.
In Quebec, the program for maternity without risk of La Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail offers benefits to women who must leave their jobs for that particular reason. However, employees working for federally regulated employers in Quebec are not eligible for this program. It is noted that no other Canadian province offers compensation as Quebec through its health and safety at work measures. Consequently, in provinces outside of Quebec and in the circumstances of a preventive withdrawal, the employee will have to refer to her current collective agreement to receive compensation, the Employment Insurance Act or the employer's private insurance plan.
Therefore, the rationale behind this is one that is meant to be in good measure. I understand that, as anybody in the House would certainly agree, the bill as presented certainly does seem reasonable. The same benefits that are available provincially, in this case mainly referring to Quebec, would be applied to women who work in the federal area under the federal Canada Labour Code if those benefits are better. The problem is that no other province has the kind of benefits available to pregnant women that are available to workers in Quebec. If the bill were to be adopted, only women in Quebec who work under the federal labour code would benefit from this particular legislation, as well intentioned as it may be.
The bill, therefore, creates two categories of workers: workers in Quebec and workers in other provinces. It creates a precedent, where an employee subject to the Canada Labour Code could opt out for the provincial program if she deemed it more generous, essentially cherry-picking the jurisdiction and laws that would apply in her case. The bill would allow employees to choose their effective jurisdiction, which is no way to run a federal country or administer a federal code.
Therefore, as well intentioned as it may be, because of the problematic nature of that in one province and not the others, we vote against the bill in its present form.
In effect, through the Canada Labour Code, the bill forces the federal government to live by present and future labour laws of the provincial governments without having any say in exactly what one has to live up to, even though the federal government has jurisdiction in its own area. In this case, the provinces would be dictating what is happening to the Canada Labour Code with respect to federal undertakings. This would be costly for the federal government, which would compensate the provinces under the terms of an agreement provided under proposed section 132.15 of the bill, which would create two payment systems under the provincial legislation and the Employment Insurance Act.
Again, I would like to remind members that when we bring private members' bills to the House and the principle is to help affected people, we believe that this should be looked at. However, sometimes we take the principle of a particular bill and vote accordingly. However, if we look at the bill and the flaws within it, sometimes they become too overbearing and we therefore vote whichever way we must. In this case, the flaws contained within it would certainly be overbearing to the system.
The bill would create a regional inequality in the Canada Labour Code that does not currently exist, which is what we put forward in 2005 when the bill first came into the House under Bill C-380 under the Bloc Québécois. It would create a separate system for employees under federal jurisdiction. The practical effect of Bill C-380 would create a separate system for employees, those working in Quebec, and those under federal jurisdiction who are working in other regions or other provinces and territories across the country. We certainly do feel that these arguments stand, as well intentioned as the bill may be.
If the proponent of the bill was concerned with pregnant and nursing mothers, the bill would have been drafted with those concerns in mind. As much as we compliment the member on the particular intentions within the bill, we certainly have to look at it on a national basis. In 2005 these were the arguments that we brought forward. These are the arguments that we adhere to in this situation. Therefore, we vote against it as a party.
As I mentioned earlier, under section 132.15 of the code, a pregnant or nursing employee who is subject to the code may apply to be reassigned to another position if her work constitutes a danger to herself or the child. If the worker cannot be reassigned by the employer to another job, the employee can obtain leave without pay under the code. Compensation will then be granted under the Unemployment Insurance Act or the collective agreement itself.
In Quebec, the program for a maternity without risk of the CSST offers benefits to women who must leave their jobs for that reason. It is also called preventive withdrawal. However, employees working for federally regulated employers in Quebec are not eligible for this program. We agree with the principles that I outlined before. It is noted that no other Canadian province offers compensation as Quebec through its health and safety at work measures. Therein lies the reason why the party votes against it.
Again, I congratulate the hon. member for bringing this into the House as it is certainly a pertinent issue. Hopefully, we can rectify these problems and get back to looking after the people who need it the most.
- MPlibMay 03, 2012 1:45 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, I wish the member was here in 2005 when the Conservatives railed against the idea of including the Atlantic accord in the budget. The very things that he said were the things that they railed against. However, I digress.
He said earlier that he would talk about the inclusion of aboriginals in this debate. Taseko Mines Ltd. is trying to sway the way the Conservative government into excluding aboriginal peoples from participating in the environmental review of a project that would affect first nation communities. What does he say?
- MPlibMay 03, 2012 1:30 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the pathway that the Conservatives have created. What one person may call a pathway another person, certainly me, would call tunnel vision, because in this particular case what we have is a lot of ideology being infused into the policy. The policy is somewhat understated by the government, but nonetheless it needs to be fleshed out.
That said, I do have a question. In all honesty, what I find is a little disconcerting. Time and time again through this debate—and up until the end of the debate, and going way back as well, even to the last budget—the Conservatives talked about the strong systems now in place that allow Canada to be number one out of seven when it comes to debt to GDP ratio. There are other markers out there that refer to Canada as being a leader in that particular area. Whether that may be the Conservatives or the preceding government is a whole other issue.
However, the question remains. Why would the government raise the age of eligibility for OAS and GIS from 65 to 67, citing that other countries are doing this, when those other countries do not have the financial strength that we do? Why would the government do that? What would be the impetus? I doubt if the demographers are really winning the argument over themselves who are saying that we have a strong enough economy to support that 20 years down the road.
- MPlibMay 03, 2012 12:45 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure if I got this right from the member. He mentioned British Columbia getting more in transfers from this government than the preceding government. I think that is based on a formula which is called equalization and has been in existence for quite some time.
As a matter of fact, Newfoundland and Labrador, where I come from, is actually getting less money. No, let me correct that, we are actually getting no money from the federal government. That is because of the resources that are off Newfoundland and Labrador's coasts and because of what we have done. I would go back to the fight, what happened between Danny Williams and the Prime Minister.
I want to ask the member about one thing. He keeps talking about skills and development. Small towns across this country just lost the community access program which delivers high-speed Internet for the smallest communities. It is an issue of poverty. People making below the median income of $30,000 cannot afford these large bills for high-speed Internet. The local library decided to provide that service for all citizens, and now it is gone. It is a little disingenuous for a member from rural Canada to be talking about the fact that they are losing this essential service.
- MPlibMay 02, 2012 2:20 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague about some of the comments coming from the government with respect to how in the past the former Liberal government would put a lot of the services down to the provinces when it comes to deficit fighting and cutting down on the deficit, which we did.
However, I would like the member to comment on how raising the age from 65 to 67 for old age security eligibility, as well as the guaranteed income supplement, will be a downloading a lot of responsibilities onto the provinces, certainly when it comes to welfare, housing and a lot of the social services.
- MPlibMay 02, 2012 12:20 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, this petition comes from the Canadian Interfaith and it calls for leadership and action on climate change. These are constituents of mine from the town of Bishop's Falls.
The petitioners are calling for concrete action in reducing greenhouse emissions that are affecting the entire planet when it comes to climate change. In particular, they are calling for a constructive role in the design of the green climate fund under United Nations' governance and by contributing public funds to help mitigate climate change in areas and jurisdictions around the world.
I want to thank Sister Mary Ryan and others at Bishop's Falls for putting this together.
April
- MPlibApr 30, 2012 3:10 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, indeed, I am nothing if not life interrupted. I want to thank the House for allowing me to speak at this time.
I want to address some of the issues brought up by the member for Medicine Hat and the downloading of services, which is rich considering the Conservatives condemned the Liberal government for so many years, saying that we had downloaded services to get rid of a deficit. However, now we hear the same sort of language, but that is okay when it is switched around.
I want to get into public safety and talk about one of the issues on the east coast, and that is both sub-centres for search and rescue. One is in Quebec City and the other St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. It is such a shame at this point with the amount of money and efficiencies created, which was illustrated by a good question from my colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who, for the record, is not an independent. She represents the Green Party.
I would like to talk about the east coast and this measure. The efficiencies created by this do not come near the deficiencies created in the realm of public safety. The government has taken two operations that function extremely well and are vital in a chain of command for search and rescue on the east coast of our country and has moved them to Halifax and Trenton. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with the establishments in Halifax and Trenton, but the problem is with local knowledge that is tapped into it, not to mention the language barriers in Quebec City. Local knowledge, which is vital and has been talked about by bureaucrats, experts, members of the Coast Guard and DND, has been completely ignored.
We had no indication that this was coming. We could not foster a larger debate on this because we never knew this would be cut. However, there was some debate on it this morning in a private member's motion when a lot of these points were brought forward, especially from Newfoundland and Labrador.
In support of the motion, we need to look at the folly of some of these decisions that are made under the guise of efficiencies created and the money that we save. I am alarmed by the idea that putting Canadians at risk is so easily dismissed in this debate.
Let us flashback to 2004-05 when I first arrived here. We talked about creating efficiencies in the department, and I was a backbencher on the government side then. However, the opposition, most notably the Conservatives, were vehement in their defence of public safety.
Yet we have this the debate now. One wonders, if the Conservatives felt that efficiencies would be created, why they would shut down debate. We were at a stage back 2004-05 when the Conservatives wanted to foster the debate. Now, god forbid, if we bring up public safety, whether it be food inspection or search and rescue, all of a sudden we find ourselves in a position where we are not allowed to discuss it.
Just this morning, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence said that response times for search and rescue were not a conversation for this place, but a conversation for the bureaucrats or the people involved in the department. There is no doubt that it is a big conversation they need to have, but why can we not discuss in the House?
We support this motion for the sake of public safety. That is the debate we should have here and that is why I encourage all members to support the motion.
- MPlibApr 30, 2012 12:25 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Newfoundland and Labrador regarding criminal punishment.
The petitioners point out that crime has decreased over the past while and therefore we should put the emphasis on rehabilitation as opposed to just simply looking at criminal punishment as the only way to deal with crime.
The petitioners come from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Conception Bay South, as well as Gander.
- MPlibApr 30, 2012 8:30 am | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, I want to address some of the concerns that were just brought up. Actually, I am somewhat bemused by the comment that we should not debate the response time issue here because the member thinks perhaps we are not qualified or that this is not the place to do it.
I first came to this House in 2004 and I remember the debate about the Coast Guard. I am sure my hon. colleague for St. John's East will remember it. The Conservatives complained in the House for days on end about the fact that there was no fuel available for some of the Coast Guard ships in St. John's. The bureaucrats later said that it was not true, yet it was made a point of debate in this House. At some point the Conservatives will start practising what they used to preach.
Here we find ourselves in this debate. Why can we not debate response times? Why can this country not have a discussion about the resources that we have in the Department of National Defence and be informed about how we go about doing this?
I find it ironic on several levels. Another level is the huge announcement about the F-35 and how we are going to deal with this situation with the stealth fighters. While the Conservatives say that they have a Canada first defence policy, the F-35s get the attention but the fixed-wing search and rescue is floundering. Where is it going? What will it be? Who is going to get this contract? Will the Conservative put out a tender for this aircraft? They are flying 50-year-old airplanes on the west coast.
I think this is a good debate. The Conservatives talk about the F-35s and say that they have a Canada first defence policy; I cannot think of a greater Canada first defence policy than what we are talking about here today, which is search and rescue.
The Conservatives have signed international protocols. Just the other day there was an announcement that there was a new initiatives fund for ground search and rescue, which is a fund that was established many years ago. Why can we not debate this?
Perhaps this is a bold statement on my part, but Newfoundlanders and Labradorians now probably know more about the minutiae of search and rescue in this country than any other province and perhaps any other jurisdiction around the world. Why? It is because it is an issue. The Conservatives say in this House that we are not going to debate it. They complain that the NDP vote against defence policies, yet they do not even want to talk about it. It is absolutely ridiculous. Why can this House not be a place of discourse, a place to be informed about how it works?
The member had a point when talked about response times. He said it is just over 60 minutes on the weekend; it is actually less than that, at just over 50 minutes, and on weekdays the response time is just over 20 minutes. That is the result of good people on the ground and in the air. However, we are talking about the policy of 30 minutes, 24/7. That is our debate. To say that we are not allowed to or should not be talking about it is disgraceful to anybody involved in this issue.
We have some of the best search and rescue people in the world. There are just over 100 Cormorant helicopters around the world, and nobody uses these helicopters the way Canadians do. We are flying these things more than any other jurisdiction around the world, and it is because of our people who do this.
When I first got elected in 2004, there was an accident involving the Ryan's Commander. There was one individual, and I will not say his name, but he is currently a search and rescue technician, and this was one of his first missions out. He was lowered down from the wire to get to the ship when all of a sudden the wind came up; he was smacked against the boat and found himself floundering in the water. Can we imagine being lowered in the dark with just one spotlight from a helicopter, waves two or three storeys high, just dangling there, and all of a sudden becoming untethered and landing in the North Atlantic?
I bring that up because, my goodness, this is the perfect place to discuss what these people do. This is a question of resources. If the Conservatives want a Canada first defence policy, then they should make it about this country. They should make it about Canada first.
When we talk about a Canada first defence policy, there is no better example than our own search and rescue. We have the largest coastline in the world, and the biggest areas; there is no doubt about it. We have bases across the country, and now we require assets in the north as well. We require fixed-wing search and rescue. All of this comes down to one thing: to be ready and to be available.
That discussion has to take place right here, at the highest level, in order for us to understand its importance and how it works. We want Canadians to believe in a Canada first defence policy and to believe in better search and rescue for all citizens across this country, whether they live in the mountains, whether they live inland or on the lakes, or whether they live beside the North Atlantic or the North Pacific. If we are going to make this a better system for them, then let us discuss what kind of resources they need. We need to ask Canadians what they believe to be the number one priority in defence.
For the last six years I have argued that I do not think that search and rescue has been the priority, and that is a shame. This fixed-wing search and rescue issue has gone back and forth between departments and cabinet discussion here and there. Unfortunately, it seems to be a political football getting thrown back and forth, a hot potato that nobody wants to deal with.
We are talking about search and rescue. It is the very essence of the motion that my hon. colleague has brought to the House today. He and I and many people in the House have talked about this for years, and it is not just we who have been talking about it. I remember former NDP member Catherine Bell, from the Comox area; she was very passionate about search and rescue. The thing about search and rescue was that we all had a learning experience from it, and because we discussed it so much, we are having an informed debate.
Let us look at another element of search and rescue readiness: crew hours. Crews can be out on the job for a maximum of 15 hours, and then it has to come down. They have to be off the job. That element has not been addressed here, but we have to look at it in order to create a 30-minute readiness standard, 24/7.
We should be looking at best practices in other countries. Both of my colleagues brought up several illustrations. Why can we not stand in the House and talk about what those countries do best and how we can become better as a result?
We have talked about the search and rescue system in the Department of National Defence, but what about the Coast Guard as well? The government wants to trim the deficit; it wants to be more cost-efficient, as Conservative members would say. We have proven to them time and time again that closing down the maritime rescue sub-centre in St. John's is not the way to do it. A whole host of experts have told the government that if it wants to create efficiencies, that is not the way to go about it.
I ask my hon. colleague here in the House: was he aware that this was being considered? I certainly was not. I went with Conservative colleagues, NDP colleagues and the Bloc to St. John's to have a look at the sub-centre, and it was wonderful. Everybody loved the sub-centre. It was a great asset and it was doing wonderful work. Then, bang; down came the hammer, and it was gone.
Like many people, I was shocked. Where was the discussion then? Is that what this is about? The government is going to put resources here and will not have a discussion about it. All of a sudden the government is making this decision, even though the experts are telling it that it is probably not such a good idea, given the history of search and rescue on the east coast and given the history of the Coast Guard, DND and ground search and rescue with a team of volunteers.
I am disappointed, but I support the motion. If it furthers the debate, then so be it. If that is all it does, rescue is still going to be needed in this country.
I would tell my Conservative colleagues that if they are serious about a Canada first defence policy, then they should get on board and vote for the motion. Let us go forward and have a decent debate in the House, as we have been doing.
- MPlibApr 30, 2012 8:20 am | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the parliamentary secretary points out is the voting records. As a matter of fact, the member for Random—Burin—St. George's presented a motion in this House asking for more resources for search and rescue in the Department of National Defence. Members will never guess what the Conservatives did. They voted against it. We can play that game all day.
However, my question for this particular member is, vis-à-vis the ground search and rescue effort across this country, which is primarily a voluntary one, would it not be ideal for the Department of National Defence, along with the Coast Guard, to up its standards so that ground search and rescue across this country, a teamwork of volunteers, could also be increased in its effectiveness?
- MPlibApr 23, 2012 12:15 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
With regard to government procurement, for each of the following companies or individuals, namely, (a) RackNine; (b) RackNine Inc.; (c) RackNine Canada; (d) 2call; (e) 2call.ca and (f) Matt Meier of Edmonton, Alberta, what are the particulars of all and any government contracts for services provided, including (i) the time period covered by the contract, (ii) the nature or purpose of the service provided, (iii) the amount paid to the company or individual for their services, (iv) whether the contract was awarded through a competitive bidding process or was sole-sourced, (v) which government department or agency contracted with the company or individual, (vi) under which budgetary allocation was the company or individual paid for the service provided, (vii) the associated file or reference numbers for each contract?
- MPlibApr 04, 2012 12:25 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege and the honour of attending the RADHOC Conference in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. A collection of youth from grades 10 to 12, up to 17 years of age, spent three days talking about issues of the day and how public policy affects them. They presented a petition to me on site and asked me to present it to the House of Commons.
They are calling on the federal government to make health transfers to provinces adequate to all ten provinces and three territories. I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, for allowing me to do this. I also thank all those young people from communities such as St. John's, Bishop's Falls and Conception Bay South.
- MPlibApr 04, 2012 11:55 am | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, after bragging about maintaining or even increasing the level of funding for the CBC, it seems the axe is now out. Even the backbench Conservatives are drooling all over the place just at the concept. The wolves are at the door.
The Conservative cuts will kill plans for new programming, force the CBC off the air in rural and remote communities and 650 jobs will gone. Did he realize that these cuts would be so deep? Why did he not do anything about it?
- MPlibApr 03, 2012 3:30 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, that is the wonderful thing about debate in this House. Even though we spend years working on a bill, a new dimension of something that is good in public policy gets borne out. I would like to thank my hon. colleague for doing that. Of course, it is an issue for the local community, given the fact that many of these people would be able to remain within that community because they would know that they would get a payment twice a month. Therefore, it would be easier for them to shop locally.
I would humbly suggest that it is not something that we would strictly consider an economic value or an economic development, but it is one dimension to this particular issue. In the member's province and in mine, there are a lot of towns where mills have shut down. If the seniors in those particular communities received a steady income, it would count toward the viability of a particular community.
- MPlibApr 03, 2012 3:25 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of variables involved that we really cannot calculate. When the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that it was not fiscally significant, chances are it was based on the people who had claimed in the past through electronic payment, which would therefore reduce the cost. I think there was more of a variation. In the past there was a high price tag attached to it, but now with people getting payments electronically, as Mr. Crewdson is getting, it brings the cost down substantially.
Again, I go back to the benefits. I certainly feel that the benefits outweigh the cost in this particular measure. I am one who considers that issues should be fiscally prudent as well. I think this is a good measure.
- MPlibApr 03, 2012 3:20 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, that was very well said.
I want to read the last paragraph of the letter from Mr. Crewdson, who says that he wants to be paid twice a month instead of once. He thinks it is a small measure that could go a long way. The final paragraph states:
I hope you appreciate that we are not asking for more money, which would be nice, but my hope and prayer is that we can get your Bill through parliament, and give us a cheque twice a month instead of once. I acknowledge that the sum of money will be the same, but it can be handled better, budgeted better, and take away a lot of fear that we experience at present. If I can assist you in promoting your Bill -- letter writing and so on, do not hesitate to contact me.... This is something worthy of us all pulling together to achieve.
Sincerely
Benjamin W. Crewdson and Dawn Crewdson
St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador
By pulling together, I think he means all of us here in this House. I am willing to bet that for most MPs, income security for seniors if it is not the most talked about issue in constituency offices, it is up there in the top five. It has to be. I can tell by the nodding heads that I am right.
This is not a slight against anybody or any party. This is a measure that would allow people the dignity to be able to budget better. Yes, sometimes and oftentimes tragically things happen where, if one is being paid twice a month, it would become that much better to budget.
I bring this matter to the House because I feel it is that important. Again, the administrative costs are not that high. The benefit of allowing people CPP, old age security and guaranteed income supplement to be paid twice a month instead of just once is a huge benefit for seniors to budget.
I want to thank this House and all members. Mr. Crewdson would also like to thank members very much.
- MPlibApr 03, 2012 3:15 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.
I mentioned a group around the Clarenville area. The feedback survey included a question as to whether participants would like the option of receiving their benefits biweekly. About 75% of respondents answered yes. We believe this is a good indicator of the type of support the bill would receive.
We received feedback from the group known as CARP, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons. CARP supports measures that increase the flexibility with which Canadians have access to their CPP funds and other retirement benefits, and that is what the bill is about. The bill gives seniors the option of biweekly payments.
My colleague has given me material from her riding that shows there is overwhelming support for issues that come up for seniors, especially those between the ages of 65 and 80 and those who live in their own dwellings.
One of the points that is brought up in this House quite a bit is the costs. I realize there would be administrative costs to change this. We did our due diligence and looked into it. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said the cost of administering the bill is “not fiscally significant”.
Administrative costs should not be high because most seniors now receive their payments via direct deposit, which reduces mailing costs. It is the mailing costs which are one of the biggest financial liabilities when it comes to the administrative costs of changing this measure, but because people are getting paid by direct deposit, the costs would not be as significant. I hope the government and all members of the House will bear that in mind. If this is a time of austerity in Canada, then I certainly think the benefits far outweigh the administrative costs in this particular measure.
I would like to wrap up by referring to a letter that I received from Benjamin and Dawn Crewdson of St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. I would like to read most of the letter because I think it is very pertinent to this debate. I thank them, if they are watching, for allowing me to read this letter in the House. It brings out the points very clearly. Mr. Crewdson writes:
I am a senior citizen (age 74) and for many years I and my wife have been trying to exist on CPP, OAS & GIS for a total at present of $2,000.00 a month.... We have no other assets. But what...did not bring to the table (or else it wasn't reported) is not only the difficulty of budgeting, but the fear that pervades one's life after a small monthly cheque is received. When my cheque arrives (by direct deposit) the first thing my wife and I do is pay the rent, the light, and the communications (telephone, TV, computer). Then we try to take care of personal grooming, hair-cut for me, hair-do for the wife . Then we have to calculate the number of weeks before the next cheque to allocate our monthly groceries. Many's the month my cheque is fully allocated within a few days of receiving it. We then know that we have to live the rest of the month with no additional funds.
The fear I mention not only pervades one's life for the period before the next cheque, but in my case, I am diagnosed Chronic Kidney Failure patient. I have to attend hemo-dialysis treatments three times a week, the costs of which (transportation, dietetic and medications) was never considered in our original allocation of our funds. I now live in fear that one day I will not have sufficient [money] to cover my bus fares to the hospital and so miss a treatment, or that we will have significant funds to cover the cost of my medications, which are hefty, or that we can only cover the cost of my diet requirements by cutting down on other foodstuffs....
I hope you appreciate that we are not asking for more money, which would be nice, but my hope and prayer is that we can get your Bill through Parliament, and give us a cheque twice a month instead of once. I acknowledge that the sum of money--
- MPlibApr 03, 2012 3:10 pm | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
moved that Bill C-326, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act (biweekly payment of benefits), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being given this time on what is certainly a special occasion, given the fact that I introduced this bill several years ago for the first time.
I discovered some time ago that the essence of this bill is really about allowing pensioners and seniors the freedom and flexibility to budget. This bill would certainly allow them to do that. Honestly, the number one issue in my riding, from looking at the number of calls that come into my offices, is about income security for seniors, certainly for those who are receiving the CPP and old age security, as well as GIS, the guaranteed income supplement.
In essence, this bill does not create a large burden on the taxpayer by putting up more money; it is a question of administration. It is a question of budgeting for the individual who chooses, is not forced, to be paid twice a month instead of just once.
Where does this come from? What is the origin? Who particularly wants this and why? At first blush, many people who are not receiving this might say to themselves, “I do not really see the difference. If we are dealing with the same amount of money on a monthly basis, why would people be worried about getting paid twice of month instead of once?”
During the deliberations, in several meetings across this country, including one in Newfoundland and Labrador, about four years ago it was brought to my attention that it would be a good benefit for seniors to be paid twice a month or at the very least have the option for that. That option allows seniors to budget better, especially those who are impoverished or are living below the poverty line. I will explain that soon.
This first came about in a meeting at a convention I went to staged by the Newfoundland and Labrador Pensioners and Senior Citizens 50+ Federation. Its president, Robert Rogers, brought this to my attention, about how so many seniors would love to have this type of flexibility to be paid twice. To me it seemed as if it had been mentioned before but was not really a big issue, until they took a vote at the convention. Well over 80% of the people said they would like to have that option.
One of the things I have noticed, too, is that many of the people who said they would like to have the option were between the ages of 65 and 80. In that age group of 65 to 80, a lot of seniors in my riding still live in their home or live in an apartment dwelling, where they pay for their medications and food. Being paid twice a month helps those seniors to budget that much better.
For seniors over the age of 80, a lot prefer to be paid once a month because they are in assisted living. They are in a place where all their bills are paid up front, and therefore they would like to retain that option.
That is what the bill does. It essentially allows an individual to check a box to say “Yes, I prefer to be paid twice a month”. Once again, that is the Canada pension plan, old age security and, if eligible, the guaranteed income supplement. The benefit of this is that it would allow seniors who were used to receiving their income biweekly during their working life to continue with a familiar schedule.
My office has had several discussions with a gentleman by the name of Leo Bonnell who works out of Newfoundland. He is a former banker, and he is a big believer in this type of policy that allows seniors to have the flexibility to be paid twice a month. He is on the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Advisory Council on Aging and Seniors, and he is an active member of the Newfoundland and Labrador Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation. As I mentioned, he has been advocating for this option for quite some time.
He believes that this type of system would be much more convenient for seniors as they would have a more regular cash flow. The cash flow element is of the essence here. That is what Mr. Bonnell talked about.
In Newfoundland and Labrador we often see a mad dash for the supermarkets on what many people call cheque day. There is one day of the month when most of the cheques are mailed, and on that particular day the grocery stores and the pharmacies are overcrowded. I see MPs in the House nodding their heads in agreement. They know what I am talking about. They hear about it, and they see it time and time again.
The people who own these stores will tell us much the same. The story is that the stores are overcrowded and some people are desperate, especially when it comes to medications.
For example, seniors budget their cheque for bills, medications and groceries. So they go out on the day they are paid, like most seniors do on that particular day, and they buy all the necessary provisions based on their own budget.
The problem is that unexpected things happen. Two weeks later they can come down with a chest infection and need another type of medication. They are only paid once a month, but emergencies occur. Let us say they bought the normal amount of medication and now they have a chest infection so they have to go back and get more, based on the doctor's orders, and they have to wait. Many seniors are waiting up to four weeks because they do not have the extra amount of money, because they buy all of their goods, including not just medications but also groceries. They also look after provisions such as fuel, home heating, their rent and all of that. If something unforeseen happens, being paid twice a month certainly would help. It does not alleviate the indebtedness they have to take on, but instead of waiting three weeks to get that essential medication, they may only have to wait three or four days because they know that at the middle of the month another cheque is coming.
We have also received some great feedback from seniors groups across this country. From the most populous provinces, Ontario, Quebec, and also British Columbia we see a lot of support for the bill. One of our local seniors groups, in the riding of my hon. colleague from Random—Burin—St. George's around the community of Clarenville, hosted a seniors information session whereby various presentations were given to some 60 seniors from Clarenville.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking you for a little—
March
- MPlibMar 30, 2012 9:45 am | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
It is 136.
- MPlibMar 30, 2012 9:40 am | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Forty-six.
- MPlibMar 30, 2012 9:30 am | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, there does not appear to be a quorum in the House, requiring 20 members.
- MPlibMar 30, 2012 9:05 am | Newfoundland, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
Mr. Speaker, my point of order is with regard to the members' statements that began this session.
I have been here for eight years. I take quite a bit of delight in bringing attention to events and people in my riding who do wonderful things. I am sure every member in the House does much the same for all the right reasons.
Members' statements that preceded question period were shameful. It was all an extension of debate in the House that we should be doing during debate. It is 15 minutes in a day. Could we not talk about the people and events of this great country for just that period of the day?
Could you please make a ruling on that, Mr. Speaker, and come back with an opinion?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
follow