Rob Nicholson

[Sponsorship Program, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard testimony from one of the star witnesses at the Gomery commission. I think I can summarize Mr. Corriveau's testimony in this way. The more money he received from the Liberals, the less he remembered. Is that not lovely?

We do not need a final report from the Gomery commission and we do not need a court order to get the government to start paying back money.

Why does the Prime Minister not do the right thing, get his friends in the Liberal Party together, tell them that the jig is up, that all the commissions, kickbacks, and dirty money they have received should be returned to the people?

[Income Tax Act, April 14th, 2005]

The hon. member mentions the name Susan Whelan. I am not sure who negotiated this on behalf of the government. Whoever it was, this was a sad day for people who were trying to protect senior citizens.

This has my complete support. I am very enthusiastic and pleased that we have brought it to this chamber. I hope all hon. members will put aside partisan differences. Quite frankly, I do not care brought it in at this point, if this Parliament can join together and get the bill passed because it is the right thing to do.

[Income Tax Act, April 14th, 2005]

My friend indicates that is because they could collect more money from them. While they would be trumpeting and telling people how wonderful they were to seniors, they would be reaching into their pockets and pulling money out them.

It was wrong then and it is still wrong today. People notice. They even notice this bill. It is so vital to a group of Canadians that they have been following this very carefully.

In the last week an individual from Niagara Falls, whose name I have permission to release, Mr. Fred Ruish, called my office. He hopes it is still going through Parliament and that this will be discussed and adopted. My office has had discussions with him. In my conversations with him, I have told him we are doing our very best to push this through. I ask members on the other side to have a look at this and the fairness of it.

The government does not balance the books on what it takes in by collecting more money from Canadian pensioners receiving United States social security. This is a very small amount in the overall scheme of things, but it is a huge thing for those individuals who receive this payment.

This is now at the point where Parliament will have to decide on this. Canadians across the country, including my own riding of Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake and Fort Erie, are quite interested in this. Quite apart from the numbers and their location in the country, I have maintained, as have my colleagues, that it is a question of being fair to people who have contributed, paid and have been part of one regime. Then they find, when they are ready to collect their social security which they depend upon, that the rules have been changed. This is a big injustice. I cannot understand how the government walked into this with its eyes open, but it did.

[Income Tax Act, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak this legislation. First, I congratulate a couple of my colleagues who have helped push this matter. One of course is the member for Calgary Southeast. In the previous Parliament he brought this to the attention of the House and asked a very reasonable request of the government and the House to make changes on this. That was not forthcoming. Therefore, I congratulate my colleague, the member for Essex who has been an outstanding representative in this chamber. He has been a very effective member of Parliament. I told him immediately, when he was putting the legislation together, how pleased I was and how important it was.

Bill C-265 is an act to amend the Income Tax Act to reduce from 85% to 50% the inclusion rate on United States social security benefits paid to Canadian residents. How did this come about? In the late nineties, the inclusion rate for Canadian citizens who were in receipt of United States social security meant that 85% of it was exempt. If a person earned social security or received a social security pension, 15% was included that person's income.

We could ask why is that fair? Why would it be the case or why would it be treated that way? If we go back to the reason why Canadians are getting United States social security, we would know that they did not get any deductions as we do on the Canada pension plan. All Canadians who are required to pay the Canada pension premium have weekly deductions on their pay for that pension. At the end of the year when filing their income taxes, they are able to deduct it.

Therefore, it is only reasonable that the amount of money they get from Canada pension would be included as part of their income, and that is only fair. However, that is not the case with respect to United States social security. We are talking about Canadians who worked in the United States. They paid into the United States social security, but when they paid their income tax, they did not get a deduction for it. I should add a little known fact. Those Canadians who worked in the United States were always taxed at the highest rate.

The United States, unlike Canada, has basically one rate as one moves through the system. There are several rates depending on, among other things, one's family or marital status or whether one has children. What the American taxation system did for individuals working there was to assume they would have no deductions whatsoever and they would tax them at the very highest possible rate.

There could be an individual who worked in the United States and might have supported three, four, five or six children in Canada and a spouse, but they were taxed at the highest rate. There was some rationale to this. I suppose from the point of view of the Americans, they can say that they do not know how many dependants a person has. A person could tell them that he or she had six or ten dependants, but how would they police that? Therefore, they taxed everybody at the highest rate.

Canadians who were paying into the United States social security system paid at the very highest rate in the United States and then were given a credit when they filed Canadian income tax. At the same time they did not get a deduction.

Is it reasonable at this point, when they finally get a pension from the United States, to have favourable tax treatment? Of course it is. It is only fair. That is the way it was in this country for a long time.

I mentioned the member for Calgary Southeast and his work on it. He saw the injustice as soon as it took place and tried to convince the government to do something about it because it was only fair. We could say we are only talking about a few people, but that is not the case.

About 80,000 residents in Canada are recipients of the United States social security. For those individuals, all of them seniors, this is a big deal for them. In my riding of Niagara Falls, I have hundreds of people who are in receipt of United States social security. It was a rude awakening for them when they found out that instead of getting an 85% deduction on their inclusion rates, it became only 50%. This is a huge increase.

If people are dependent on United States social security, it is highly unlikely they will get a pension from Canada. They can only work in one place at one time. They are dependent upon that and all of a sudden they are getting a 70% tax increase. This is a huge burden that was placed on those individuals who found themselves now the victims of this new treaty.

How did it come about? This was negotiated between this government and the government of the United States through a series of protocols and acts. They went in with their eyes wide open. Why sell out these 80,000 Canadians? I have no idea why they would want to do that.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, April 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member highlights exactly what I have been talking about. He says, “Oh, the member will be happy with this”. I am happy with announcements, but I will be happier when the cheque actually arrives. That is what I want to see. That is all I want to see. I think it is a reasonable request.

I would ask the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell to use his influence with the finance minister and say to him, “Look, cut the cheque. Do something about some of these promises we have made”. That is what he should be doing.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, April 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point of the problems I have with this budget. It is the question of the government's priorities and the choices the government has made.

The night this budget was presented, the member for Wild Rose made a very interesting comment. As soon as the speech was completed, he called over to the Minister of Finance and said, “I think there is a misprint in the copy I have. The chapter on agriculture seems to be missing. I cannot find it”. The member remembers saying that. I did the same thing.

Agriculture is absolutely vital. It is important to this country. Much of the tender fruit industry and the grape and wine industry in this country is centred in my part of Canada. Of course I looked for assistance in the budget, or a demonstration that the government knows about and wants to support these industries. I will tell members that we had to look real hard to find any reference to agriculture. I was very disappointed.

Again I will come back to this about the Government of Canada and the choices it makes and its way of doing business. I was in Winnipeg a couple of years ago and heard the Prime Minister, then the finance minster, start talking about giving gas taxes to the municipalities. I was a municipal politician at the time. I had no reason to doubt the sincerity of the then finance minister. I told my colleagues, “Gee, I think we are going to be getting some of that gas tax in the municipalities. This will be of interest.”

The spring becomes the summer, the summer becomes the fall, we are into the winter again and there is talk that it is coming. Then we are into an election. There has been an announcement and “gas tax to the municipalities” is part of the election. The election comes and goes, the summer becomes the fall, the fall becomes the winter again and the cheque is never in the mail.

That is the problem with this government. The announcement comes and then we wait. It is like the constituent who came up to me and said, “I'm voting Liberal this time because I think they are going to legalize marijuana”. I said, “Well, jeepers, you'll get to vote for them all your life, I guess, because that's a promise they make every election”.

I disagree with that promise, but the Liberals just keep making it and it dies on every order paper. It gets buried somewhere.

The same promises go on and on. In the end, just like the municipalities waiting for their cheque for the gas tax, those promises just do not quite make it. I would guess that we will probably be hearing another announcement with respect to this.

That is not the way government should be done in this country. We should make commitments to people and then follow through on those commitments in a timely manner.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, April 13th, 2005]

Yes, that is right, Dalton McGuinty, the Liberal premier.

According to this article, the Prime Minister has “lost touch” with the Ontario electorate. I agree with the premier. The Prime Minister has lost touch with the electorate in the province of Ontario as he has right across the country.

On the subject of fiscal arrangements, then, we think we should all have a look at fiscal arrangements and the way the government handles them. We should come up with a plan that is fair to everyone. We should not be doing this in the one-off way we saw in the last federal election.

I am also concerned about the government's commitment to the whole question of border security. In my riding in the Niagara Peninsula, we have four border crossings. It is a huge issue and one that concerns all Canadians, not just me as a member of Parliament from that area.

There are a couple of things I have raised before and on which I will continue to press the government. One is this: not enough is being done on the subject of border security. Here is what is happening. Because the federal government does not live up to its responsibility now, the tab or the price for border security falls to the Niagara Regional Police Service. It is not done by the federal government or an agency of the federal government to the extent that it should be.

This is the responsibility of the federal government. It is elementary constitutional law that international security is the responsibility of the federal government, but the government is not taking it on. As a result, the government has received resolutions from the Regional Municipality of Niagara. A little over a month ago it received a resolution from the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake. That resolution says, among other things, “Whereas border security is a responsibility of the federal government, be it resolved that the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake supports the Regional Municipality of Niagara in requesting that the cost of border security be borne by the federal government”.

Is that not a reasonable request? Is there anything radical about the Government of Canada living up to its responsibility? This was sent to the other municipalities. The resolution I received, of February 28, 2005, indicates that this was also supported by the city of Niagara Falls.

However, it is not just the waterways that I am concerned about. This week in Ottawa we heard from representatives of the customs officers union. They met with a number of us and cited a number of concerns about their ability to do their jobs. The problems they cite at Canada's border crossings included the following. They have problems with the databases. It is apparently very difficult to call up information to check on who a customs officer is dealing with. In this day and age it should not be like that. It should not take them a long time to go into various databases when they have to make a quick decision on what is before them.

They point out that there are over 225 unguarded roads between Canada and the United States. They point out that 1,600 vehicles just blew right past border patrols in the year 2004. They cite problems with students working alone. They cite problems with the fact that customs officers are told not to deal with armed and dangerous criminals but to let those criminals into Canada. Then they are supposed to call the local police. Unfortunately, that sometimes means the response time is very slow, so dangerous criminals have the opportunity to get into this country.

This is a big problem. I think it is a big problem for all Canadians. This is one of the things I have been saying over the past few months to the government: work on these issues. There is money, a lot of money. The government has already figured out that the supposed surplus is about double what was projected just a few weeks ago when the budget came in. The Liberals should use some of that money to protect Canadians and give the tools to our customs officers that they deserve.

As well, members of the Canadian Real Estate Association have concerns that they want to take up with the finance minister. They are worried about the Department of Finance abandoning the reasonable expectation of profit test. I say that the Liberals should sit down with these people and work these things out.

There are a couple of other areas. I would love to get into this area of the municipal infrastructure money. The Prime Minister made announcements on this a couple of years ago, but it is just like a lot of things. The announcement is made, but very often we are still waiting for the cheque.

I am pleased to have had this opportunity for debate and would be pleased to take any questions that may arise.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, April 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to follow my colleague from Red Deer in this debate today. Let me say how pleased I am to be sharing my time with him. He is, as we know, a committed environmentalist. I and all Canadians, I think, appreciate the clarity which he has brought to the subject of environmental issues. I certainly appreciate his comments on the government's lack of initiatives in that particular area.

I am pleased to speak to the budget implementation bill. There are many parts to this budget, and I have said before that I and members of my party support any measures that include tax deductions for Canadians. Canadians are overtaxed. The extent of the federal surpluses over the last few years is proof of that. We support any initiatives that would reduce the tax burden on Canadians. We certainly welcome that.

We welcome those initiatives that would put money into the hands of our armed forces. I pointed out on a previous occasion that this has been spread out far too long and is all back-end loaded. It seems to me that it fits this government's pattern. The government either makes a promise or makes an announcement and we are supposed to wait indefinitely for the results or the cheque to arrive.

Quite apart from that, I wish the government would have a look at this bill and make some changes to it in order to facilitate its passage. As we know, the last budget implementation act is still working its way through the system. It takes a long time to get one of these bills through. By piling up a group of things into the bill, the government is leaving certain things hostage, things that are widely supported.

I want to mention a couple of things about the budget. Certainly the Atlantic accord is one of them. It was the right decision to make, but it came about for the wrong reasons.

We will remember that at about this time last year the Liberal Party found itself in trouble. The Liberals thought they were going to lose some seats in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, so against what he has been saying for many years, the Prime Minister reversed himself on the whole question of offshore resources and made a promise.

We support the result even if we do not agree with the reasons for which it was done. In any case, the Atlantic accord has ended up in the budget implementation bill and that is too bad, because those particular provinces want and are entitled to the money that would flow to them from that accord but it is tied up in this bill. Our leader and our party have made it very clear that we would separate this out and pass it at all stages in one day. We would go ahead with that if the government were so inclined.

It is too bad about that, but it actually raises a bigger issue and that is the question of transfers to the provinces. Our party has advocated having a look at the whole process, not as was done in this particular case where the government feels it is being held hostage or is desperate for a couple of more seats.

No, we should do it in a comprehensive way. We should look at the whole question, because other provinces have concerns as well. I picked up the paper this morning, and the Toronto Star , no less, points out the premier of Ontario taking the Prime Minister to task under the headline, “PM has 'Lost Touch' with Ontario voters...premier says”.

These are not my words or those of somebody in the New Democratic Party. This was the premier of Ontario talking. He went on to say--

[Richard Paré, April 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, it is my pleasure to offer my party's best wishes on the occasion of Richard Paré's retirement as Parliamentary Librarian for Canada's Library of Parliament.

Retirements are always filled with a mix of emotion and pride, but they also provide an opportunity to look back on past accomplishments and achievements.

Speaking as an individual member of Parliament, I know I speak for everyone when I say how much parliamentarians appreciate the work of the library and all those who work within it.

Mr. Paré has seen many changes over the years. As an MP who has recently returned to Parliament, I have been particularly impressed with the automation that has taken place at the Library of Parliament under his watch this past decade. Intraparl of course now plays a huge role in the daily life of Parliament Hill and beyond.

It is also important to note that Richard Paré is the first francophone chief librarian in the history of the Library of Parliament.

Mr. Paré has always felt it was a great honour to be the first francophone Parliamentary Librarian in the history of Canada, and to have spent 24 years in the service of Parliament, its institutions, parliamentarians and their staff, and the general public.

Mr. Paré worked under six different Prime Ministers, six Speakers of the Senate, and six Speakers of the House of Commons.

I want to commend Mr. Paré and his staff for his commitment to customer service. I know this can be a very demanding place, but there are only good things to be said about him and the work that he has provided.

In closing, I am informed that he is a dedicated family man and a proud grandfather who enjoys golf and tennis. I expect he will be keeping very busy with those pursuits in his retirement, but as a politician I am somewhat loath to sound too envious of the notion of retirement.

I wish on behalf of the Conservative Party to extend to him our very best wishes for his dedication to Parliament and to Canada.

[Committees of the House, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Conservative Party are proud to vote yes.