Rodger Cuzner

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, June 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come off a question that was just posed by the member for Mississauga South over a concern that I had with regard to this legislation.

I know the leader of the New Democratic Party addressed the CLC just recently and spoke, as well, at a couple of other public functions about how the Liberals and the Conservatives only spent five minutes on the EI legislation and the establishment of this crown corporation. He was indignant and disgusted that they were in cahoots with each other and only put in five minutes.

The member totally ignored the fact that my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour put forward a Liberal motion to the human resources committee that we would study this. We put almost four weeks into this and we were hoping to table the report tomorrow. With total disregard for the work that was put in by the human resources committee, he tried to lead organized labour and Canadians to believe that this was some covert operation by the Liberals and the Conservatives.

Does the member find that sort of discredits the party and calls into question its sincerity in its opposition to this bill?

[Arts and Culture, May 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend the Savoy Theatre in Glace Bay played host to one of this country's musical treasures. The Amadeus Choir of Toronto, under the direction of Glace Bay's own Dr. Lydia Adams, treated concert goers to an incredible evening of music and entertainment.

There was one tune, however, that struck a sour chord with all in attendance. That was the concern people expressed for the cultural institutions of this country. The cutbacks to CBC Radio 2 and the elimination of the CBC Radio Orchestra are further proof that the Conservative government holds in contempt both the national broadcaster and the Broadcast Act.

Programs like young performers and young composers competitions, which have proven to be crucial to venues for the upcoming artists and composers, have also been cut.

Canadians expect much from their national broadcaster and they want a radio which engages their minds and inspires them to greater thought and creative expression.

It is clear that the government is intent on stifling higher thought and argument in this country and has the CBC clearly in its sights.

Rest assured that the Liberal Party will stand up for this country's institutions and diverse needs of Canadians.

[Foreign Affairs, May 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous. This affair has been bungled by the wilful blindness of a Prime Minister who wants to throw Canada's international reputation under the bus to protect his protege.

The government is afraid to investigate this incident because it knows what the outcome is going to be.

As for what the House leader says about the diplomatic passport, a diplomatic passport is the property of the Government of Canada, so this issue is pertinent. Have you guys checked that out yet and will you get that passport back to the--

[Foreign Affairs, May 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister is in London and Canada is all over the headlines there too.

The Times headline states: “--Foreign Minister...steps down after ex-lover reveals security lapse”. The Daily Mail states: “I quit, says minister who fell for Hell's Angel girl”. The Evening Standard says: “Minister resigns after leaving files with 'biker chick'”.

Is this the reputation the Prime Minister had in mind when he said he wanted to put Canada back on the world stage?

[Canadian Coast Guard, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotians deserve to hear the truth from the fisheries minister. Instead of falsely accusing the past government, he should take responsibility for his own actions.

Why is he moving Coast Guard ship after Coast Guard ship out of our province and why is he downgrading the Canadian Coast Guard College in Sydney? Will he at least listen to the Conservative premier of Nova Scotia, reverse this partisan and political decision, and send the Cap Percé back to Sydney where it belongs?

[Income tax Act, May 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join this debate. I cannot help but make the comparison between what our Conservative government is doing and the same approach that the American Republicans have taken with their interventions abroad. With the $10 billion price tag on this piece of legislation, I think the government wants to “shock and awe” my Bloc colleague into pulling the bill out of the House. I do not think that is going to work in this House.

This is a very important issue. Certainly it is important to make sure that seniors, Canadians who have worked their entire lives, are able to retire with some degree of health, support and dignity. I want to commend my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska for bringing this legislation forward.

As has been brought up in previous interventions and in the parliamentary secretary's speech, there are aspects of the bill that are of much concern. Certainly, our finance critic is not comfortable with a couple of areas of the bill, and I would like to bring them forward later on in my address. Finance officials also have concerns with how the bill reads and if it is as focused as it should be.

Nonetheless, I want to state on the record that I think it is important to bring this bill forward to committee so that these issues are addressed in committee. That is where we will able to have a full hearing. That is where we will be able to tap into the advice and recommendations from expert witnesses. We think that is where the bill belongs. We will be supporting that.

As I understand it, the bill deals with defined benefit pensions. When seniors retire, they anticipate that the defined package is going to be there for them, but let us say that they are not able to have the income they anticipated, for whatever reason. That certainly would have an impact on lifestyle and on people's ability to provide for themselves and their families.

The bill provides for a 22% tax credit for any lost income. If a person thought he or she was going to be drawing $35,000 and was only able to draw $30,000, then that 22% tax credit would be applied to the $5,000 difference, for about $1,100.

I think this bill deserves to be brought forward and looked at in committee. The member for Burlington made his intervention and talked about all the great tax room that has been given by the government since it came to power, but I will give the government just a little reminder.

I will use this opportunity in debate to remind the government of one tax increase, and that would be the tax increase on income trusts. We all remember income trusts. We remember the Prime Minister, through the 2005 election campaign, looking into the eyes of Canadians and promising outright that there would be no increase in the tax applied on income trusts. Therefore, Canadians felt confident and very comfortable in putting their money into those income trusts, but we know what happened.

On Halloween 2006, the Conservatives pulled the plug. They put the tax on the income trusts. Within two days, $25 billion of money earned by and invested by Canadians was lost from the markets.

Probably thousands of people were directly impacted by this broken promise, by this intervention of a 37.5% tax placed on income trusts. Thousands of Canadians were impacted, and probably millions indirectly, because most pension plans were invested in income trusts. Certainly CPP, which impacts or will impact every Canadian, was heavily invested in income trusts, so it did have an impact on all Canadians. We want to remind the government of that tax increase and the broken promise.

The Saskatoon StarPhoenix summed it up for me with regard to the reality of the income trust tax when it stated: “It's a huge impact for seniors. If you worked 40 years to create that nest egg and in a short time you lose one-quarter of that wealth, it's like going back to work for 10 more years”.

That is what was said: “like going back to work for 10 more years”. I know seniors, the people who contributed to this country, the people who paid taxes all the way through, the people who are looking to retire with a little dignity. They deserve better. They deserve more.

Here we are talking about Canadians who have pension plans or who have had the opportunity to contribute to RRSPs and prepare a little for their retirement, but I want to remind the government about something else, too, because its members go to great lengths about some of the steps they have taken to help seniors.

The Minister of Human Resources was at committee the other day and he almost separated his shoulder from patting himself on the back. He talked about increasing the amount for someone who receives the guaranteed income supplement. He talked about raising the ceiling as to how much he or she can earn. He thought this would be good for the labour market.

It may have a minimal impact on the labour market, but he talked about how great it is for seniors. How many people who receive the guaranteed income supplement will that have an impact on? Some 4% of Canadians who receive the guaranteed income supplement are able to go to work. So really what the government has done is fail the 96% of Canadians who receive the guaranteed income supplement. They will receive no benefit whatsoever from that intervention.

What really scares me and my colleagues on this side of the House is the rise in food prices and the rise in gasoline prices. We see the cost of living going up, but we do not see any action on the other side to help those seniors who are most vulnerable. We have seen that this measure fails 96% of the seniors receiving GIS.

Mr. Speaker, this coming fall--and mark my words, you will go back and refer to this in Hansard--we are going to have seniors in this country who will be up against it. We are going to see seniors who will have to decide if they will fill their fuel tank, fill their cupboards or fill their prescriptions. It is going to become that stark. The government has to do something.

Certainly I believe we will be able to bring these issues forward when the bill goes to committee for study. We do have some concerns. We will see what the bill looks like coming out of committee.

There are concerns that were shared with me by the critic and members on this side. We want to know if through this bill the government will guarantee all pension funds. Will this act as a disincentive for employers or employees to properly and fully contribute to and manage their funds? That is an important question. Hopefully the expert witnesses will be able to shed some light on that.

For Canadians who do not have a defined benefit package or pension plan, we want to ask if it is fair for them to subsidize this. This is a question that has to be asked.

We want to find out if the bill is worded properly. Does it ensure that it targets only retirees with these pensions?

We do not know if this bill is a proper solution, but it does merit further consideration. We have every confidence that the standing committee will bring forward the appropriate witnesses. We will get answers to these questions and hopefully from those answers we will find out whether or not the bill deserves further support.

[Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, May 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a lot of love in the chamber today. I also join in the throng and the chorus of congratulations. The late Senator Forrestall was a gentleman who was very active on this issue, and he deserves great recognition. The passing of the bill would certainly pay tribute to his efforts, as well as the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's who brought this forward in the last Parliament.

It is an important bill. When going through the research on it, it is astounding that we are the only country out of the G-8 that does not have legislation in place for lighthouses. We can look south of the border down through the New England states. Almost 70% of the lighthouses are protected under some type of heritage legislation.

We have over 500 lighthouses in Canada. It is imperative that the time has finally come and, hopefully, we will be able to respond to this.

I also take this opportunity to commend the Nova Scotia Lighthouse Preservation Society. It is a great group. I believe the province of Nova Scotia has more lighthouses than any other province in the country and this group has done so much with advancing and keeping this issue to the fore. Hopefully this will culminate in some success in the next number of months. We will continue to work on that because it is a concern.

Only 3% of Canadian lighthouses now have genuine heritage protection and only 12% have some type of partial protection, and that is a concern.

As I had said, the Nova Scotia Lighthouse Preservation Society is very active. It has reason to be because of the numbers. When we look at properties like Sambro, it is almost 250 years old. The member for Malpeque told me that the current of Minister of Fisheries was there at the official opening of the Sambro lighthouse, although I cannot say that is a fact. The lighthouse at Sambro is a huge tourist draw. When people come to Nova Scotia and spend their summers in there, they tour the coastal communities. They want to see Sambro and experience that trip back in history.

There are a great number of lighthouses in my riding, but the technology has changed. Where we had manned lighthouses, now the technology is on our ships. If we walk into the house of a fishing vessel now, it is like walking into an high-tech IT office, with computers, keyboards, monitors, GPS and screens all over the place. With what they have available to them now, we do not see as many lighthouses. Some have become redundant, as far as their actual function and necessity, because of the navigational aids. Others have become de-staffed and automated, but still provide a very important service to mariners and fishermen alike.

In my riding, Cape George, Cheticamp, Port Hood, Scatari Island and Flint Island all have lighthouses. I will talk about a couple in particular. We have been very fortunate in that some community groups recognize the cultural and historical importance of these lighthouses and have come forward, rolled up their sleeves and taken control over them.

I want to touch on a couple where the community has realized some success. The lighthouse in Mabou Harbour was built in 1884 and protected the coastal steamers. The west side of Cape Breton Island was the only protected harbour. That light was a beacon for safety, a safe harbour for anybody who worked and plied their trade on the west coast of Cape Breton. It was very active as was Mabou Harbour. There is a lobster cannery, which my wife's grandfather, Herb Hopkins, operated before he took the trade down to Port Morien and Glace Bay.

In 1998 a group from that community got involved and took charge of the lighthouse project. There has even been a great resurgence of interest in the property. We invested some money in the harbour authority and upgraded it four years ago. It has really taken on some energy and the community has rallied around it. It has become more of a destination and a spot for tourists to stop as they go through the Mabou area to the Red Shoe and Strathsbay Place and all those great tourist opportunities on the west side of the island.

I know everybody in the House is familiar with Fortress of Louisbourg. The first lighthouse in Canada was built in Louisbourg in 1734. The current lighthouse was reconstructed in 1923, but the old light lens can be seen at the Louisbourg Marine Museum. There is a very active lighthouse society. In fact, the lighthouse is an incredible spot to visit. I encourage anybody, when they come to Cape Breton, to go past Havenside to the lighthouse on the point facing Louisbourg. Looking out over the historic property of Louisbourg fortress is spectacular. It is something of which every Canadian should be proud. One of the best vantage points is from that lighthouse.

A group has developed a whole trail system along that coast. Ernie Parsons, Rick McCready, Jimmy DeVries and Susan Burke are some of the people who have been involved in this project. It is a spectacular experience to go out to the lighthouse, to view the coastal waters and to hike along the trail. It is a great experience.

The station in Queensport in Guysborough county was established in 1882. The current lighthouse was built in 1937. In 1991 the Department of Transportation identified that it would be finished with it, but the municipality of Guysborough stepped up. It has kept it painted and restored. There is a local foundation there now, Keepers of the Beacon, which continues to do good work on the Queensport lighthouse.

Not all these assets have had great success. There was a lighthouse just outside of Mulgrave in Eddy Point. It was on the eastern side of the Canso Strait, the strait that separates Cape Breton from the mainland. A community group was very interested in taking over operation of the lighthouse, ensuring that the lighthouse was restored and properly maintained. However, the Coast Guard came in 2003 or 2004 and said that it did not have the ability because the legislation was not in place. It was its responsibility to ensure liability was not undertaken by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Coast Guard. That lighthouse was dismantled, which was a true tragedy.

I am sure the legislation will prevent those types of losses from our inventory of coastal lighthouses.

Because of the historical importance, the cultural importance and the impact they have on the tourist industry in coastal communities, it is important we continue to be vigilant with lighthouses. Therefore, we will be supporting the legislation.

[National Volunteer Week, April 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this is National Volunteer Week and I would like to recognize and thank all Canadians who take their time to get involved in their communities as volunteers. The theme of this year's volunteer week is “From Compassion to Action”.

The 12 million volunteers in Canada are motivated by their strong desire to help others and to improve their country. Many of the programs and events that we take for granted, like community health care, recreation and sport, arts and cultural events, and yes, even political campaigns, would not be able to function without volunteers.

During this volunteer week I encourage all Canadians to thank the people who make a difference in their communities and to consider getting involved as a volunteer. There are over 160,000 charities in Canada who could benefit from their compassion and their action.

[Ethics, April 18th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, just to correct the parliamentary secretary, he has been asked this question over 150 times and not once has he provided an answer.

This Chuck Cadman affair has ruined the reputation of Doug Finley and ruined the reputation of Ian Brodie, and I am concerned about my friend the parliamentary secretary and how it is sacrificing his credibility in the House.

The Prime Minister is on tape. Dona Cadman is on record. Has the parliamentary secretary asked the Prime Minister directly to explain the tape?

[Ethics, April 18th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government believes that everyone is out to get it: Elections Canada, the Nuclear Safety Commission and the Canadian Wheat Board. There is even an audiotape of a senior Conservative admitting the party tried to bribe Chuck Cadman, so I guess the Prime Minister is out to get it too.

What did the Prime Minister mean when he said they offered to replace “financial considerations” that Chuck Cadman might lose due to an election?