Paul Szabo

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for dealing with the social deficit in Canada rather than being preoccupied, as the government is, on fiscal deficits, particularly with regard to seniors' pensions.

As the member knows, on January 1, 2011, the first budget year, the government will be imposing a 31.5% tax on income trust, which was used by seniors to provide for an emulated pension.

The member will also remember that when the government introduced income splitting for seniors' pensions, what it did not explain to people was that only 25% of seniors had eligible pensions that qualified and if we included people who did not have a partner to split it with or were already at the lowest marginal rate, it turns out that only 14.2% of the highest income-earning seniors actually qualified for any benefit under that plan. The government has not been straight with Canadians.

I thank the member for raising that issue, as well as the maternal child health. There is no question that Canada can play a role. I want to give her an opportunity to comment further on the social deficit issues that we should also address.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear from the hon. member. We have worked together in the past and he knows that we have to continue to keep our eye on all of the challenges facing the country. It is not just the fiscal deficit that we are facing. Incidentally, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has now reported that the government's projections on growth rates et cetera are too ambitious and that there will, in fact, be a $20 billion structural deficit which really exacerbates the problem that we are facing on the fiscal side.

However, we also have to deal with matters on the social deficit. The member is a trained medical practitioner and he will know that we are facing some serious problems with regard to the delivery of health care, the attendant problems we are going to have on social services, all related to going through a recessionary period.

I wonder if the member would care to comment on whether or not he anticipates seeing some support for health care and social services.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member covered a couple of the things that her colleague, who spoke just before her, covered, particularly on the issues related to climate change. It is a shame that the throne speech and the government's budget initiatives flowing from the throne speech have basically ignored some of the significant issues that will present the greatest risk to our country and, in fact, to the planet.

The government has a history. When it became government, it basically cancelled all initiatives. It also said that signing the Kyoto accord was wrong and that climate change was just a socialist plot. I do not believe it can ever change.

The problem is that the focus of the throne speech and the budget seems to be on fiscal matters and balancing a budget that is at odds with the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The government has not made an ongoing commitment to address the dangers of climate change. I would like the member to add a little bit more to her concerns on these matters.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 11th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, on page 5 of the English version of the throne speech, it states:

Balancing the nation's books will not come at the expense of pensioners. ...or by raising taxes on hard-working Canadians. These are simply excuses for a federal government to avoid controlling spending.

I believe that misleads the House since the member will know that on January 1 there will be a punitive 31.5% tax on the distributions on income trusts. We also have a significant 9% increase in EI premiums to employers and employees, job killing, as the member knows, that will commence during the first year of the budget. Another example would be the transport taxes that the government is proposing.

It appears, notwithstanding what the government says that it will not be raising taxes on hard-working Canadians and pensioners, that its actions say that in fact it is. I wonder if the member would like to comment.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the government has misled Canadians and this Parliament when it stated in the throne speech that balancing the nation's books would not come at the expense of pensioners or by raising taxes on hard-working Canadians.

However, we know that it is raising transport taxes. There are significant increases in employment insurance premiums on employees and employers. It is also imposing a 31.5% punitive tax on income trusts. My question is not so much on the merit of fiscal policy, but on the character of this government and our ability to trust it.

[Petitions, March 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this is probably one of the most significant petitions that I have delivered as a member in 16 years. It has to do with income trusts and it comes from the proponents of the Marshall savings plan to try to find some fairness and equity for pensioners.

These petitioners, from my riding of Mississauga South and from other surrounding areas, want to remind the House that the Prime Minister promised not to tax income trusts during the 2006 election, and then he broke that promise. He imposed a 31.5% punitive tax on those income trusts.

They also want to point out that in claiming that income trusts cause tax leakage, the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance did not provide the proper calculations, in fact, there were redacted documents. Notwithstanding, other reputable groups like HLB Decision Economics, BMO Capital Markets, RBC Capital Markets and PricewaterhouseCoopers had in fact verified that there was no such justification.

They also point out that the income trusts did not cause a tax leakage. This has now resulted in the takeover of some 51 income trusts by foreigners and other non-taxable entities, which was a direct consequence and has three times as much tax leakage as was falsely alleged in the first place.

The income trusts also create an unlevel playing field between 75% of Canadians without pensions and those who must pay this punitive tax, and also adds to the risk of foreign takeover and for further tax losses.

And finally, that the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament for the specific purpose of recalibrating his policies and the budget to be tabled to Parliament on March 4, 2010, that addresses the needs of Canadians and deals with Canada's deficit and pension crisis that arose from the recent financial turmoil.

Therefore, these petitioners call on the Government of Canada to acknowledge that the government's financial justification for imposing the tax was flawed, and to recalibrate and remedy the matter it should adopt the Marshall savings plan as part of its budget 2010 on the basis of the following signatures, which I referred to, some 3,414 Canadians.

[THE BUDGET, March 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for talking about the social deficit in Canada and particularly about seniors.

The member may be aware that although the government boasts it allowed pension splitting for seniors, only 25% of seniors have pensions that qualify for the splitting. If we take out those who do not have a partner to split with or those who are already at the lowest marginal tax rate, only 14% of seniors actually benefit from pension income splitting and those seniors have the highest incomes of seniors, which is a problem.

Also, other seniors who do not have pension plans may have invested in income trusts. The member will know, notwithstanding the government says that it is not raising personal taxes, that on January 1, 2011, it will be imposing a 31.5% tax on income trusts.

Would the member care to amplify on the last point she made, that it appears the government is helping those who are the least needy in our society and ignoring those who have very little security in their years of retirement? What would she recommend for them to live in dignity and respect?

[THE BUDGET, March 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the member obviously recognizes that there is a fiscal deficit, but there also is a social deficit with many dimensions.

The government continues to say that it will not be raising taxes, yet in the budget, over the five year budget cycle on which it is reporting, there is a $19 billion increase in EI premiums, payroll taxes. In the House the parliamentary secretary rose in his place and said that those were not taxes.

On top of that, effective January 1, 2011, just a few short months from now, there will be a 31.5% tax on income trusts. That is personal income taxation. That is a clear example of how the government has not been honest with Canadians about what is in the budget. I hope it will answer the question about how much revenue is included in this determination over the five years of a deficit down to $1.8 billion.

This comes down to a question of trust, and that is my question to the member. I do not believe the government can be trusted. I do not believe the Conservatives have been honest with Canadians. They certainly have not been honest with Parliament on this matter. Does the member have any other examples of why the government cannot be trusted?

[THE BUDGET, March 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that unemployment is going to go up from 8.2% to 8.5%. At the same time, although the government has frozen EI rates for the current period, rates will be increasing substantially over the term outlined in the budget. I believe it is some $19 billion in additional EI premiums, which are job killers. That is to quote the finance minister.

On top of that, the employment insurance benefits that over 500,000 Canadians are currently drawing are going to lapse and they will have no recourse unless they find jobs.

I want to ask the member whether he acknowledges the problem that people's benefits will be lapsing and at the same time employment insurance premiums will be increasing substantially for employees and employers and killing jobs.

[The Budget, March 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, it is always good to hear from my good friend from Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.

The member mentioned seniors on a couple of occasions. I was very glad to hear that. She also used the words, “seniors should be able to live in dignity and respect”. That would tend to indicate that somehow we are talking about those seniors who have some difficulty in meeting their financial requirements and obligations for their own personal health and well-being.

The program the member mentioned, the provision allowing seniors to split their pension income, I would like to advise the member of a recent study that was done that shows how 75% of seniors do not have pensions to split. If we take out of those who do have pensions, those who have no partner, and we take out those who are already at the lowest marginal rate, only 14.2% of seniors can actually benefit from this program and it is only the highest income earning seniors in Canada.

I hope she will take that back to the finance committee and maybe find out how we can help real seniors in need to live in dignity and with respect.