Rodger Cuzner

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, February 13th, 2008]

With regard to the Small Craft Harbours program of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, what was the funding amount allocated, granted or contributed to each harbour in each federal electoral district within the province of Nova Scotia, in each of the years 2003 to 2007, inclusive?

[Income Tax Act, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this debate today. I want to congratulate my colleague from Malpeque for making sure that this issue gets the opportunity to raise its head again. It is one that has been around for a number of years. I had the pleasure in the last Parliament of introducing it as Bill C-273.

In clarification of some of the points brought forward by the parliamentary secretary, I stood shoulder to shoulder with the member for Malpeque, who seconded my private member's bill in the last session, as well as the member for Lethbridge, who is respected in this House for the work he has done on behalf of firefighters across the country. Under a previous government, he brought forward similar legislation.

We stood shoulder to shoulder. We went to committee to represent this bill. Tough questions were asked, but it was never defeated by the finance committee. If the parliamentary secretary remembers, Parliament was dissolved. We went to the polls. The writ was dropped and the legislation died on the order paper. That is the history of the bill. That is in essence what happened with Bill C-273, so let us be fair about that.

I certainly thought at the time that the House supported the intent of the bill. I thought it supported the principle of the bill. Certainly not everyone was in line. I know that in our caucus we had to educate some of the people from urban Canada. There were some comments made about members of my caucus who really did not support the bill and were concerned about the merits of the bill. I guess people who live in one of the bigger centres take for granted the fact that there is a professional firefighting service. When they go to bed at night, they believe there are professionals who are going to respond to the call.

What many of us in our caucus did was try to educate those people from the cities and show them that in rural communities this is not the way it is. The guys who respond to alarms in our communities are the same guys rotating tires at the local garage. They are the guys running cable and wiring houses. They are the guys and the women who are serving in any of the sectors of the economy, but when the pager goes off, they respond. These are the firefighters we have in so many of the rural communities. It is for these brave men and women that we stand here today. Hopefully we can get some support from the government on this bill.

In my own riding, I have 50 volunteer fire departments. I take any opportunity I can to go to an installation of officers or whatever the function might be in one of those fire departments. I have been to Inverness, Albert Bridge and Glace Bay. I was in Dominion last weekend, where Chief Hugh MacDonald brought seven new members into his department.

There is a consistency throughout these departments. We can see it. These firefighters consider themselves to be carrying the same weight as the professionals. They have the same responsibilities as professionals.

We place so many expectations on these men and women. There is an expectation that when the alarm and the pager go off, they are ready to respond, whether it is three o'clock in the morning or they are on the golf course with three of their friends. Whatever it might be, they are going to be there. There is that expectation.

There is the expectation that once they get to the scene of an accident or a fire they know exactly what to do. There is the expectation that they are as well trained as the professionals in the larger centres.

There is another expectation that sometimes we just see past and try to see through, and that is the mental, physical, emotional and spiritual expectation that we put on these individuals.

I have some friends who work with the Mira Road fire department, which has just acquired a new set of jaws of life. They did the fundraising and what had to be done to get this set of jaws of life and they did all the training involved.

Let us think about it. Let us say that two guys who are going about their business get the call. They respond to the call out on the highway bypass where there has been a head-on collision. They get out the jaws of life.

The expectation is that they respond to the call, know how to use the equipment that is there, go through the procedures and scrape a 17 year old kid off the dash of a car. We have an expectation that they are going to be able to leave that scene, deal with it emotionally, mentally and spiritually, and then go back to their day jobs. That is a very great expectation to put on volunteers.

I will put in my volunteer time, like most people in the House. Everybody has a volunteer background. I certainly spent enough time in the rinks across my riding coaching lacrosse, soccer and hockey over the last number of years. I hold in high regard those people who volunteer. That is what makes communities.

However, there is something different about these men and women we are discussing. They are the people who are running into the building when everybody else is running out. They deserve our respect. They deserve more than the average volunteer. They stand apart from every other volunteer. That is what this bill is all about.

They are not motivated in any way by financial reward. That is not what motivates somebody to join a volunteer fire department. They are motivated because they feel they can do something to help their community. They feel they are able to contribute to their community for the better.

I would hope that this small measure in some way would perhaps recruit, retain or reward those individuals who give of themselves on a regular basis over extended periods of time throughout their entire careers as volunteer firefighters.

I am disappointed with the actions of the government on this. I thought this was the time that the bill would proceed. I am sure that the member for Lethbridge is disappointed with this.

I hope the government can find its way to come through on this and support the bill. I know that the member for Lethbridge would be happy. I know that firefighters across this country, the men and women who volunteer from coast to coast, would be happy. I know that the people who hold them in such high respect in the rural communities of this country also would be very pleased.

[Skills Development, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that 2007 will be remembered by front line Service Canada employees as the absolute worst year of their public service careers.

All Canadians remember the mess that was last year's Canada summer jobs program. The cuts and changes made by the Conservative government cost valuable jobs for many students and opportunities for not for profit organizations and small businesses. Combine that travesty with the more recent changes in training assistance through the skills development program and people will get the picture.

Young men and women, many of whom had already enrolled in courses, were later notified that they would receive no training assistance from the government and their lives were thrown into chaos. Single mothers who had enrolled in courses to improve their lot in life with a sincere desire to make a greater contribution to their communities had the rug pulled out from under them.

We understand that the government has responded to some of the advice made by the official opposition with regard to the Canada summer jobs program. We would hope only that the government would see the wisdom and the merit in doing the same for the skills development program.

[Canada Elections Act, December 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I respect my colleague's intervention on this topic and his understanding of the issues here, and I share his concern. I have heard it time and again over the last number of elections about the preparation of voters lists and the departure from enumeration. We know that the last enumeration was in 1997.

I had an incident in my riding where one community was voting in the poll in the adjacent community and vice versa. There is always contention around this but I know positive steps have been made in advance polling.

The member brought forward some very significant issues. If he could fill me in on when Bill C-31 was passed, I believe the member for Timmins—James Bay was on that committee, would he or his party have had the opportunity to tender a dissenting report at that time?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, December 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to engage in the debate today on this important topic. When the topic of youth criminal justice comes before the House, I try, as best I can, to speak to it. I will attempt to address some of the concerns around the act and some things that I believe we as legislators can do to improve the act and, in turn, better serve the people we represent and contribute to the youth of this country.

It is important to know that when it comes to justice issues and the bills that have been brought before this House in recent weeks and months, of the 13 pieces of legislation that have come forward, we supported 10 of those pieces of legislation. We even offered to fast-track eight of them.

This particular legislation is a private member's bill that has been put forward by my colleague from Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, a colleague on the HRDC committee. In discussions with people within our caucus, we certainly believe that, although the provisions may be in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the bill underlines the importance and the responsibilities of police officers and enforcement officers to look at extrajudicial opportunities when they are dealing with young offenders.

It is important to point out that every community has its own reality when it comes to treatment for substance abuse. We all look in our own backyards. I know in my backyard in Glace Bay, the place where I grew up and continue to work, to live and to raise my kids, there is a problem with substance abuse.

Some people in the House may have seen the movie Cottonland. It addresses the terrible problem that some people in my community are facing in their battle with prescription drugs, such as OxyContin. Cottonland is a very powerful film. It notes how many good, productive, normal young people make some bad decisions at a certain point in their life and those bad decisions have grave consequences.

Tragic devastation was reaped on one particular life in the film. A young athlete, who suffered an athletic injury, went to his doctor to seek relief from the pain in his shoulder. The doctor prescribed OxyContin and told the patient to take the medication once every two days. However, as the pain continued it was once a day and soon it became twice a day. As it evolved, the OxyContin took over the young man's life and he became addicted. His entire life revolved around how he would get his next fix and how he would get the money to buy the drugs. Prior to being prescribed this drug and developing this addiction, the young man was a productive person in his community. He was very caring and giving to others and involved in life.

Those tragedies are out there. I think what the member is trying to do with this legislation is to ensure that those people who find themselves in those situations where they enter into an illegal activity or take part in a crime because of drugs, that it is considered prior to any action being taken by the police.

As the act stands now, the police are required to consider referring a youth to an addiction specialist for assessment and potential treatment recommendations before commencement of judicial proceedings. The bill further states that a youth's failure to complete this program should be taken into consideration by that officer, which would allow him or her to decide whether to start judicial proceedings.

In many cases, even under the current act, extrajudicial measures are an option for an enforcement officer. This might involve any spectrum of things, from taking no action at all to issuing the youth a warning, administering a caution or referring the youth to a program or agency within the community. We are fortunate that most communities in Canada have groups and organizations that focus on dealing with troubled young people with addictions. The goal is to provide the youth with some options in order to promote an effective and speedy response to crime.

Some of those components are already in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. I see this legislation as making it mandatory for police officers to consider such measures when dealing with a youth involved in crime. I hope my colleague addresses that in his wrap up comments.

Each of us bring our own experiences to the House. Having had the opportunity in my past life to work with young people through recreation and through sports, I know that many young people find themselves in the midst of different situations. A group of them might go out one night for a few beers and collectively make an unwise decision. Canadians do not believe that these youth, by making that unwise decision, should pay an extreme price for an extended period of time. Currently within the Youth Criminal Justice Act there is flexibility. It allows law enforcement officers and the judiciary to prescribe rehabilitative action so that youth can go on to lead productive lives. Hopefully we, as Canadians, believe in our youth and try to offer them those opportunities.

I hope to see this bill go to committee where witnesses can be heard and where it can be hashed out to see whether or not it would result in what is intended. I certainly support this going to committee, as do, I think, the vast majority of members on this side of the House.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member. I fully respect the work he has done on behalf of veterans, not just on the VIP program, but also on many other issues for veterans.

He mentioned Joyce Carter. Many people in the House have come to know Joyce over the last number of years. She is not only a great advocate for the people who are involved in the VIP program, she is a great Canadian, a super Canadian.

The current Prime Minister, when he was the leader of the official opposition, on two occasions made a promise to immediately fulfill those VIP obligations to all World War II and Korean veterans. It is a shame and a fraud that this promise has not been kept.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the premier has called on all members of the House to support the budget this time.

The opposition members and the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley fought many weeks and months in the House against the past budget, which shredded the accord. I guess the way to be a leader is to find a whole bunch of people going in one direction then jump out in front of them. This is what the premier did at that time. However, we fought that battle against the government because of the way it destroyed the Atlantic accord and Nova Scotia's opportunity to be the main benefactor of its natural resources.

I do not think we need any lessons from the premier on how to vote on this legislation.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to join in the debate, although my pleasure is not in support the legislation. As a member of Parliament from Nova Scotia, I reflect the views of not only members of Parliament from Nova Scotia on this side of the House, and a couple on that side of the House, but all Nova Scotians when it comes to the budget implementation act and the impact it will have as we go forward with what we see as the shredding of the Atlantic accord. It is of great concern.

Over the last couple of weeks, much has been said about the briefings that were to take place between members of Parliament and the department on aspects of the accord and the budget implementation act. Much has been written about the fact that several meetings were scheduled but cancelled, and that is of concern. We can deal with a little inconvenience on the part of members of Parliament, both in this House and the other house. However, what we have trouble with and what we are most concerned about is the impact this has had on Nova Scotians, which is significant as we go forward.

When the accord was signed, Nova Scotians, for the first time in many years, had the opportunity to impact on their own fate. They would be the masters of their own domain, where they would be the prime benefactor of 100% of the revenues from their natural resources. This would be over and above equalization. With the changes to the most recent equalization programs, whatever those changes might be, we would benefit from that as well as 100% of the resources.

This is not different from Alberta. When Leduc was discovered and that industry was in its infancy, it was given the same opportunity. However, when the past government signed onto the accord, it was the understanding that the agreement would allow Nova Scotians and the province of Nova Scotia to become a have province and continue to contribute to the great federation. We have seen the government step back from that.

When we sat in on two briefings with the finance officials, we saw something that was relatively simple. The Atlantic accord was a two-page document. The government brought forward 28 pages of amendments, 28 pages of changes to the legislation. We talked about the projected numbers. We still do not have projections by the federal officials, but there are published figures from the province of Nova Scotia. When challenged on those figures, the officials did not deny those numbers, but they did not support them, and that is significant. Before we are asked to vote on it, we should know what the scenario will be and what we think will hold in future for the people of Nova Scotia. However, that was not available to us and the officials did not provide that information to us.

From the numbers that have been put forward by the province of Nova Scotia, what we see is fairly dramatic. If there is any benefit to the people of Nova Scotia, it will come in the year 2020. It will come very deep into this agreement. In fact, over the first four to five years, Nova Scotia will lose $306 million.

We certainly will not buy into any deal that is back end loaded like that. It is a huge departure from where we went with the deal when we were in government, under our former prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard. After the deal was signed, there was an upfront payment of $800 million advanced to the province of Nova Scotia in good faith of this agreement going forward. However, with this one, if there is benefit, it will be in the year 2020.

Mr. Speaker, I know you are independently wealthy and a man of above average means. If you were to lose $3,000 for the first four years and a guarantee that you might get $2,000 in the year 2020, if everything went well, I do not think even a man of your means would sign on for something like that. It is not right and it is a detriment to the people of Nova Scotia.

Every time we challenge the government or members on the government bench, they switch and change tact. It is not about the numbers and the benefit any more. They start to talk about the crown's share. This is the trade that takes place and these are the future considerations. I am a Maple Leafs fan. I know a lot of times future considerations do not pan out. Often they do not work out.

In this case the recommendations from the panel are not binding. They are only recommendations. The government can do what it wants with these recommendations. If there were something binding, we would have a little more comfort with that. These are only recommendations.

The premier said that the accord would be fixed by March. I do not even know if the recommendations will come forward by March. The whole aspect of the accord and the crown's share is of great concern to the people of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton—Canso.

The other aspect I want to speak to is the reference made in the throne speech about changes to the administration of EI, the governance of the Employment Insurance Act and where it might go. I know, through the course of the debate on the throne speech regarding EI, a great deal of concern was raised on where the government would go with employment insurance and how much faith Canadians had in the government providing much needed support for families least apt to adapt without EI benefits?

Changes were made in previous parliaments to better support workers in seasonal industries. I am not talking about seasonal workers; I am talking about the industries. These workers want to stay in those communities and support those industries. It is crucial that they have the labour skills to allow those industries to survive.

I have much trepidation when I look at the government's approach to this. There must be a strong statement in the legislation. Some great private members' legislation on EI has been put forward by a couple of the opposition parties. One bill in particular was put forward by the member for Sydney—Victoria. It deals with the extension of health benefits to those stricken by a severe disease such as cancer, stroke or heart attack, and it goes past the 15 week period. My position is we should be able to support those bills. It is good legislation.

I had hoped to see some reflection by the government and some acknowledgement of the good legislation in this legislation, but we do not see that. That is a huge disservice to the many Canadians who find themselves losing EI benefits during times of illness or extended absence from work.

The government had an opportunity to do this. The best way to describe the current legislation is an opportunity missed.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, November 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I was enjoying the preamble to his question. However, with regard to the points that were being made by the member, obviously, we have to invest with issues of poverty, with issues of keeping our youth active, and investing in infrastructures in local communities, so that we can keep these young people active.

To be fair to the government, too, the minister of defence had mentioned deterrences through this legislation. The vast majority of the old information suggests that deterrence is not a significant factor. I know that there is some new information that we have access to now that might suggest otherwise. I think that is why it is important to bring this forward to committee, so that we can hash this out, have the experts present their information, and go forward from there.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, November 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my comments, we have been very fortunate in my own riding that community-based policing has been a priority for the local police department. However, there are also a number of my communities that are policed by the RCMP as well and I know that they make every effort to engage with young people. In one particular community, Cheticamp, a French Acadian community on the west coast of Cape Breton, the officers are very well-engaged with the community.

However, what the member said is exactly right. I think if we were to walk up to a group of young people who were ready to perpetrate an act and asked them whether they knew that would get them three years in jail, or whatever that term might be, I question whether that would be a deterrent. However, if there is a relationship with local law enforcement agencies and local law enforcement officers, I would suggest that out of respect for the law and out of respect for those members, maybe that act would not take place.