Paul Szabo

[Petitions, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as chair of the access to information, privacy and ethics committee, the issue of the Internet and its misuse comes up often and has become a serious matter for study and investigation. Accordingly, I am pleased to present this petition from a large number of petitioners from my riding of Mississauga South on the matter of child pornography and victimization.

These petitioners want to draw to the attention of the House that the creation, use and circulation of child pornography is condemned by a clear majority of Canadians, that the CRTC and Internet service providers have the responsibility for the content being transmitted to Canadians, and that anyone who uses the Internet to facilitate any sex offences involving children is committing an offence.

The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to stop the Internet as a medium for the distribution of child victimization or pornography.

[The Budget, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister misled Parliament and all Canadians when he said in his budget speech, “balancing the nation's books will not come at the expense of pensioners...or by raising taxes on hard-working Canadians”.

That simply is not true. Commencing during the 2010-11 budget year, employment insurance premiums for employees and employers will increase by almost 9%. The government will be imposing a 31.5% punitive tax on income trust distributions to over 2.5 million Canadians, primarily seniors, and it will be imposing a new air traveller's tax.

As the leader of the official opposition said to the House yesterday:

The issue that goes to character is that the Conservatives will not stand up in the House of Commons before Canadians and admit they have increased taxes. That is the issue of character. That is the issue that undermines confidence and trust in the government, and that is why we will continually [expose] the Conservatives when they seek to tell Canadians things that are simply not true.

[The Economy, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister's speech included the statement that balancing the nation's books will not come at the expense of pensioners or by raising taxes on hard-working Canadians, but that is simply not true. There will be a 9% increase in employment insurance premiums in the first year. There is the imposition of a 31.5% punitive tax on income trust distribution, which incidentally wiped out $35 billion of the retirement nest eggs of Canadians. The Conservatives are also imposing a new air traveller's tax, notwithstanding that the Minister of Transport said just two days ago that cutting taxes creates jobs, more hope and more opportunity. It seems to be a contradiction. It goes to character. That is the issue.

How could the member stand in his place and say the Conservatives are not raising taxes when in fact they are? It undermines the confidence and trust in the government. It is a matter of accountability and integrity. Why are the Conservatives not prepared to admit that they are raising income taxes and other taxes?

[The Economy, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the issue here is what is in the best interests of Canadians and what is in the best interests of our economy. All of the examples that I gave in my speech go to the issue of character.

I want to quote the Leader of the Opposition in his speech yesterday to this place in response to a question asked of him. He said:

The issue that goes to character is that the Conservatives will not stand up in the House of Commons before Canadians and admit they have increased taxes. That is the issue of character. That is the issue that undermines confidence and trust in the government, and that is why we will continually oppose the Conservatives when they seek to tell Canadians things that are simply not true.

[The Economy, March 12th, 2010]

I withdraw the comment, Mr. Speaker, but I do have the floor and he is still talking. It is difficult for me to respond to the question that I sat and listened to that he is not allowing me to answer. I would ask him to just listen and cool his jets.

There is one element that the member forgot to mention, which the finance minister mentioned many times in this place. The debt to GDP now is very modest compared to back when the Liberals took over the $42.5 billion deficit from Brian Mulroney. The debt to GDP made us a basket case. We were the laughing stock of the world in terms of our economic position. That is the difference.

An impossible situation requires making tough decisions. We cleaned it up and we passed on big surpluses to the Conservative government.

[The Economy, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, if the loudmouth member over there would simply--

[The Economy, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that Canadians have come to know is that every time the government gets put on its heels it tries to switch the channel.

[The Economy, March 12th, 2010]

The member is quite right, it kills jobs.

We know what the government said. It said that it would not raise taxes or penalize pensioners, but what did it do? Starting April 1, a couple of weeks from now, employment insurance premiums for employers and employees will increase by almost 9%.

I remember being in this place when a direct question was asked about the raising of taxes and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said that EI premiums were not taxes. The government does not think they are taxes. I think Canadians know that a payroll tax is a tax. They know it is money coming out of their pockets.

There will be an immediate 9% increase, 15¢ on the current $1.73 per $100 of earnings, and it will continue. In fact, cumulatively over the five years of this budget, it is projected to be about $19 billion. Can anyone imagine? That is quite a large number to suggest that it is doing wonderful things without raising taxes but it represents more than a third of the deficit that it is trying to erase.

What else did the government do? On January 1, 2011, it will be imposing a 31.5% punitive tax on income distributions to income trust holders. That decision was made after it had promised in the 2006 election not to tax income trusts. People believed and trusted the government and yet on the following October 31 the finance minister said that this 31.5% tax would be imposed, that it would be delayed somewhat but that it would happen. That is a 31.5% punitive tax on hard-working Canadians, mostly pensioners.

Do members know what that did to the value of their investments? In one short week it wiped out $35 billion of the hard-earned retirement nest egg of Canadians. What did the government say? It said that it would bring in pension income splitting and that would take care of it.

It sort of sounded like that might work, except that I did a little a homework and found out that only about 25% of seniors have defined benefit pension plans. Only those kinds of pension plans qualify for pension income splitting. However, of those 25%, if we take out those who do not have a partner to split with and take out those who already are at the lowest marginal tax rate, the percentage of seniors who actually can benefit from pension income splitting is 14.2%. Only 14.2% of seniors will be able benefit even one iota from pension income splitting.

Why was the government not honest with Canadians? Why did it not tell them the truth, that it was going to tax 2.5 million seniors, pensioners, people who have their retirement nest egg all set up and cannot take any more risk, people who do not have pensions, people for whom the income trust was a instrument to allow people to make an investment that would provide them with a monthly cash flow that would emulate a pension?

Those people have been destroyed. Fifteen percent of the income trusts have now been bought by foreign interests. It has cost us $1.5 billion in annual tax revenue because of that. Before the end of this calendar year, many more, if not all of the other income trusts, will be dissolved. That instrument disappears. This is pretty serious stuff. This has to do with integrity and accountability.

What else will the government do? It will raise the air travellers transport tax. Two days ago, the transport minister said that cutting taxes creates jobs, provides more hope and more opportunity but we are raising the taxes on travelling for Canadians.

This goes to a question of character and a question of accountability. The government says that it has a $54 billion deficit that it needs to deal with. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that the government is being too rosy on its growth rates and on the performance of the labour markets. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's analysis, the government will still be short over $10 billion to balance the budget, and yet it is focused primarily on a fiscal deficit. What the government does not mention is that concurrently we have a social deficit.

One of the immediate reactions to the budget came from Alex Himelfarb, the former head of the Privy Council who ran the civil service. He was here a long time. Just to paraphrase his statements, he said that no one can be very clear about what is going to happen over the next five years with regard to eliminating the deficit and that nobody knows whether the budget will succeed over the next three, four or five years. However, what we do know, he says, is that Canada faces huge challenges, for example, the impact of an aging population, social and economic programs, health programs and the tax system. He says that those things will make the numbers really problematic. He is concerned that it will be very problematic for the government to achieve fiscal balance again, which the Conservatives squander every time they get in government. They squander surpluses that are passed on to them.

Mr. Himelfarb went on to say that smaller government and lower taxes were not the answers to meeting the challenges. He said that if we are going to meet our challenges on the environment, climate change and deepening inequities, we will need to do other things.

Will the government meet the challenges on creating a competitive economy? Apparently not. To meet those challenges, Mr. Himelfarb concludes that smaller government and lower taxes will not do it.

We could debate this all we want but the critical issue is that the government said that it would not raise taxes. It has clearly misled Canadians and Parliament because it is in fact raising income taxes on the backs of pensioners and hard-working Canadians.

[The Economy, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we initially came to the House to debate the first piece of legislation the government put on the table, which it re-calibrated, the Canada-Colombia free trade bill, a bill that we will not be debating today because the government is not ready to deal with a straightforward trade bill and start talking about how we will move forward in terms of advancing the economy.

It goes to the question of whether Canadians can believe that it was necessary to prorogue Parliament so the government could renew and refresh the agenda. Apparently not because only one bill, other than the budget document, is on the table, and the budget was coming anyway. It was no surprise that this had to happen. It goes to the question of whether we can believe what the government says. Canadians were very upset about the prorogation and I do not think the government really gets it.

Accountability is a very important aspect and trait of people with honesty and integrity. Without honesty and integrity there can be no accountability. In my profession as a chartered accountant, one is accountable when one can explain or justify one's actions or decisions in a manner which is truthful and plain, as well as clear, concise and correct. If one adopts that definition of accountability, one will find that the government does not meet the test and has not met the test in so many ways.

I will give an example. On page 5 of the throne speech, which can also be found in his budget speech to Parliament, the finance minister stated:

Balancing the nation’s books will not come at the expense of pensioners...or by raising taxes on hard-working Canadians.

That is kind of interesting. Just two days ago in this place, the transport minister said, “Cutting taxes creates jobs, more hope and more opportunity”. However, if the government raises taxes—

[Protection of Insignia of Military Orders, Decorations and Medals Act, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the bill sounds very good in terms of its intent. However, there are some issues that some members have raised, which I think the member may be able to help us clarify.

First, on the position of the museums, they would get right of first refusal, but the issue is that if museums do not have the money to purchase the medals, then we have a problem.

The second issue is about donations. Clearly the family members have some ranking as well because they may want to keep them in the family. Eventually there will not be anybody to donate or give them to. They do have some value.

First, could the member help members understand what the implications are vis-à-vis the museums? Second is ultimately to keep things in Canada, but allow them to be sold within Canada. Would that be prohibited?