Paul Szabo

[Toronto Port Authority, November 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today's media says the government is musing about tinkering with the rules for crown corporations and other agencies, but it refuses to investigate alleged wrongdoings.

The Toronto Port Authority is so out of control that even the board of directors is calling for the Auditor General to clean up the mess. However, the government says it is beyond her mandate.

Will the government get out of the way and authorize the Auditor General to do the job that the government refuses to do?

[Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus), November 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition has a greater role to play than the other opposition parties because it has two responsibilities. First, it is to hold the government accountable. Second, it is to show Canadians that it is a government in waiting.

The accountability aspect is where the government has failed miserably. For example, what did the Prime Minister say about Kyoto? He said that it was a socialist plot trying to suck money out of rich countries and companies.

There is no commitment of the government in terms of addressing climate change, which is so important. Canadians want us to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Even the environment minister, when he talks to the oil sands people, says that the government wants to do its share on climate change but it wants to do it in a way that does not impact their businesses. The dirtiest, most polluting business in Canada is the oil sands.

I do not need to take any lessons from the member. Responsible opposition is to hold the government accountable and to point out where it has failed Canadians.

[Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus), November 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the collapsing of a stand-alone bank account for the EI fund was mandated by the auditor general during the tenure of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. It was operating at a deficit at the time.

Who would have known we would have, under the Liberal government, not only balanced budgets by 1997 but 10 years of surplus and paying down debt. However, all that money is still being kept track of and it is the Conservatives now who are taking that money and locking it into the consolidated revenue fund. They will now set up a commission to operate on a stand-alone basis, just like it was when the auditor general closed it down. That is the problem. The Conservatives are taking the money from employers and employees because they do not have a way of paying back the $50 billion that is still outstanding. The money is still there and it is being used to pay down debt, reducing interest expenses and trying to manage the finances of the nation. However, it is still owed, and the member knows that.

[Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus), November 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are opposing an incompetent government for its fiscal mismanagement. That is the issue.

When the government runs a deficit the way it is, I do not know how it will operate the home renovation tax credit once people start to file. I do know there are already some problems in it. We have raised some of the issues. We are very concerned about people getting scammed by disreputable businesses that have gone into it because there is such a high demand.

The renovation program is about two sentences in the entire bill, which is quite a substantive bill. Other issues are extremely important. The CBC will have its borrowing authority increased to $220 million. Some people might say that it sounds pretty good, but the only reason it is being done is to allow the CBC to sell its rental revenues over the next few years on properties that it owns but does not use. It is mortgaging the future.

As I said the last time when I spoke on this, I believe that when we mortgage the future of the CBC, it is the very first step to privatizing the CBC at fire sale prices.

[Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus), November 16th, 2009]

The member is quite right, Mr. Speaker. Although the government has said that it will not raise taxes, it has announced that it will raise the premiums on EI to generate an additional $13 billion a year. This is a contradiction of its promise that it would not raise taxes.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, in answer to a question in the House regarding whether an increase in payroll taxes, basically EI premiums, would be a tax, he said that it was not a tax. If that is not a tax, then I do not know what is.

We are probably going to have a $60 billion or $70 billion deficit. The $2 billion to be transferred into the commission would also be charged to the consolidated revenue fund, which means it would further erode the fiscal position of Canada. However, $2 billion is not going to be enough. The premiums are going to go into the new commission and the payments are going to come out.

When we are running an 8% to 9% rate of unemployment and when we are looking at increasing benefits for long-tenured workers, it is clear it is going to operate at a deficit and the money is going to have to come from the pockets of Canadians.

[Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus), November 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 is an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures.

As members will know, from the debate that has gone so far, this bill touches on a broad range of subject matters, some of which I have mentioned in my previous remarks.

Before I move on to my final remarks, I would like to note that on page 6745 of the November 6 Hansard, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance raised a question about whether or not I had even read Bill C-51.

In my defence, I would remind the member that he chaired a briefing session for members of Parliament the day before it was tabled in this place and, as he will recall, I was sitting in the front row throughout the meeting and was one of the members asking most of the questions. He may want to withdraw the remark about my presence at the meeting or about reading the bill.

In reviewing some of the other matters that the members have talked about in debate and why it is relevant, because members have obviously raised it, was certainly to go back and remind Canadians about the November economic statement a year ago, which is where we need to understand where we came from and why we are here today.

The economic statement contained projections of surpluses and it included cuts to government spending at a most inappropriate time. It is really amazing what happened. The members will know the litany of changes we have undergone. A budget was brought in that ultimately included a fiscal stimulus through infrastructure and other members and the Liberal Party supported them. However, what did not happen was the execution of the matters in that budget. I remember raising in the House that, even with regard to the last fiscal year, some $3 billion of infrastructure funding did not get out the door. It was approved project by project, ready to go. We talked often about having shovel ready projects so that the money could get out quickly so we could save current jobs. That was one of the key elements of the infrastructure program.

We did not get the money out. We let the money lapse, which is a shame because it just goes back into the treasury, even though it was already announced, promised, funded and ready to go. Talk about shovel ready, that was it and they let it go.

We also know it is the same situation with regard to the current program of infrastructure spending. Only 10% of the projects that were submitted for funding are underway and have shovels in the ground. It is the government's term “shovel ready”.

In my own city of Mississauga, I just looked at the listing from the manager of the City of Mississauga who keeps the members of Parliament informed. There are a large number of projects in the sixth largest city in the country, Mississauga. However, in my own riding there are none that have any shovels in the ground yet, but they do have signs everywhere announcing them. It is really a shame because, as we have seen with the unemployment situation, we have gone from having the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years to now having the highest in our history. We are approaching 9% and expectations are that it could hit 10%. It means that we are still losing jobs when the stimulus program should have been saving those jobs, should have been creating those jobs through the infrastructure programs and through other initiatives. It has not. It has been a terrible execution.

It just strikes me that the Prime Minister once mused that Canada did not need to get on side in terms of stimulus, in terms of this overall so-called global financial crisis, because we are a trading nation, which means that other countries that are doing all the stimulus spending are creating an economic activity and they will trade with us and we will benefit from their economic spending.

However, we also need to do our share but now, instead of having a surplus in the current fiscal year, we are now up to a projected deficit of some $60 billion for Canada. It is outrageous that the current government has allowed this to happen.

The Prime Minister says that his government will not raise taxes and it will not cut government spending, particularly in transfers to the provinces for health care and other things. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that we are in a technical recession. This means that we cannot grow out of it.

Projections show that even five years hence Canada will still be running a $19 billion to $20 billion deficit. This should be of concern to Canadians. This shows the government is incapable of managing the financial matters of the country. The government's responsibility is to be fiscally responsible. The Conservatives have spent all their time advertising things that have not happened.

I have some grave concerns about the government's ability to do the job. I have concerns about the EI commission, which the government wants to start up in 2010, with $2 billion in seed money. After that, all the premiums would go into the commission and all the expenses would come out of it.

With an unemployment rate that high, it is very clear to me, and I am sure to all Canadians, that the commission will operate at a deficit itself, and I hope members will ask about this. It will not have the resources to pay the employment insurance benefits to which Canadians are entitled. The government will have to make further transfers into the commission. It shows how incompetent the Conservatives really are.

[Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare, November 6th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the issue of animals and animal cruelty in particular.

The motion before the House today, which is in the second hour of debate, calls on the government to support the development and adoption of a universal declaration on animal welfare at the United Nations, as well as at all relevant international organizations and forums. I am aware that a couple of minor amendments that were requested were acceptable to the member, but the essence of the motion is unchanged.

I thank and congratulate the member for Scarborough Southwest who brought the motion before the House. I am a strong supporter of private members' bills and motions because they give an opportunity for all hon. members to pick an area where they have a passion and a need to make a difference and bring to the floor something that will encourage more attention to the important issues of the day in the eyes of many Canadians. This particular issue, obviously, has caught the attention of many Canadians.

I know the member. We served on a committee together and I know she has done her work because she always does. She comes to committee prepared to do the job. With the materials that she has provided to all hon. members and with the collegial dialogue that she has had through the House over this period of time to finally get it to this stage, I know that she has earned the respect of her colleagues and the support for this motion. I congratulate her for that.

For Canadians who may not be aware, the universal declaration on animal welfare is an agreement among people and nations to recognize that animals are sentient. That is going to be heard in the debate. That means that they can feel pain, suffering and pleasure as well. It is to respect their welfare needs and to end animal cruelty for good.

I was involved in the last bill that was before this place on animal cruelty. It was a very simple bill that had to do with increasing the penalty structure for those convicted of animal cruelty. It was a small step. We assured Canadians that was not the last step, because there were problems with a more comprehensive bill.

I am sorry that the government has not set animal cruelty issues as a priority. I am sorry that it has not brought or developed a bill or at least asked a parliamentary committee to study the issue of animal cruelty. Canadians across the country responded to Parliament by saying that this was an important issue.

We have this motion and it should reignite that commitment that we have as a Parliament to addressing the issues of animal cruelty. This universal declaration on animal welfare would be structured as a set of general principles that acknowledge and emphasize the importance of animal welfare.

The purpose of these principles would be to encourage nations to put in place or, where they already exist, improve animal welfare laws and standards. The universal declaration on animal welfare would be a prescriptive piece of binding legislation and, therefore, not concerned with attributing legal rights to animals. Ostensibly what we are talking about is to declare our commitment, understanding and solidarity in regard to the issue of animal cruelty.

Animal welfare concerns the physical and mental well-being of sentient animals. It involves considerations on how animals evolve in their natural environment and it is a description of the state of animals and the effect on them of care or mistreatment. However, any definition of animal welfare should be guided by the five freedoms as stated in the draft of the universal declaration on animal welfare.

This motion asks us to support this declaration because it is needed to help animals and, by doing so, help people as well. The livelihoods of over one billion people depend on animals. It is part of the petition that many members have been giving in this place in support of this initiative.

The implementation of this declaration would also improve the condition in a number of areas that members or Canadians might not be aware of.

One such area is environmental sustainability. Taking better care of animals would mean putting more thought into land use, climate change, pollution, water supplies, habitat conservation and biodiversity. It is extremely important and it paints a picture of the linkages among the key priorities that most industrialized countries have. Many of these issues are before our Parliament at this time. This kind of initiative is complementary and should be supported.

Another area is human health. Treating animals well would reduce the risk of food poisoning and disease crossing over from animals to humans. Companion animals has also been shown to have a therapeutic effect. I do not think I need to explain that when we see how many people, the disabled, the blind, et cetera, have animals for comfort and for guidance.

Another area is disaster management. Taking animals into account during emergency preparation and response would help the people affected to recover their lives and livelihoods afterward.

Poverty and hunger is another area of implication. Improving animal welfare would also improve productivity.

Social development is another area. How we treat animals effectively would help to determine how we treat each other.

Animals are very important. I have had so many letters from constituents about this issue and they want us to support this. They want us to make a commitment, not just to adopt this universal declaration, but to take the first steps toward appropriate legislative changes that would reflect not only our value but our commitment. Talk is cheap. What we need after this is action. I hope the hon. member will play a constructive role, as she always has, in working with all hon. members to come forward with constructive ideas on how we can act legislatively to reflect our commitment to this declaration.

In Canada, the universal declaration is supported by many organizations, including the World Society for the Protection of Animals, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, many of its member societies, the Animal Alliance of Canada, the Global Action Network, the SPCAs in British Columbia, Ontario and Montreal, and the SPA in Quebec.

Almost two million people worldwide have signed a petition to support the universal declaration of animal welfare, and worldwide organizations, including the World and Commonwealth Veterinary Associations, the Humane Society International, the Compassion in World Farming, the American SPA and the Royal SPCA in England.

When we look at this, it is a modest grouping of words but it means so much. It means that this House is being asked to take a leap of faith that joining with countries around the world to support the universal declaration on animal welfare will represent a foundational decision that this House makes, a value system, establishing that value system on which we can build, as I said, through other legislative initiatives, which I think are necessary because in our legislative system right now we do not have effective, up-to-date animal cruelty legislation.

Our history on that kind of legislation has been somehow to confuse farming animals with domestic house animals, like cats, dogs, et cetera. The problems have been enormous. I would encourage the government that when we come forward with animal cruelty legislation, if the government ever becomes moved to come forward with such legislation, that we would deal ostensibly with the spirit of the universal declaration, that we are talking about animals that are there for companionship. When we see those new stories of these severe cases of animal cruelty, the public reaction tells all Canadians just how important it is that we do need to have changes in our laws.

I believe this is a starting point and I believe the member has done a great service to the House. I think she has acquitted herself very well as an early member of Parliament. I congratulate her and wish her well when this passes this week.

[Economic Recovery Act (stimulus), November 6th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I will conclude them when I finish my 20 minutes at some later date.

There are some key items in here, for instance the Canada pension plan changes the government has proposed. When people take early CPP now, they get a certain reduction in the rate that they can earn it at.

What the government has done, the mechanics of it in plain language, is if people take early retirements, they will be penalized by the changes in the bill. If they defer it for up to five years, the government will give them a bonus. The incentive is to have more people continue to work past age 65. Those who really need the money and have to take early retirement will be penalized for doing that and for protecting themselves. I do not like that.

On the CBC, the government is increasing the borrowing authority of the CBC to $220 million from $25 million. Why? We might think it is so the CBC can be more productive. No. It is simply a technical requirement. Now, because the government will not fund the CBC when it really needs it to be competitive, the CBC will now be forced to sell the leases on buildings it owns but does not use.

The government is discounting future lease payments. It is mortgaging the future of the CBC, and this will continue.

In the last moments, let me leave this thought with Canadians. I quite honestly believe that the fuse has been lit on the CBC to the future privatization of it. The Conservatives have never supported the CBC. When there are lockouts or strikes and Canadians do not have this unifying body, it shows how important the CBC is to Canada. The Conservatives could not care less.

[Economic Recovery Act (stimulus), November 6th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the government says that it wants to do something on the EI side, so it decides to change things a bit. It decides to slap on a $13 billion tax grab on the backs of hard-working Canadians, many of whom are struggling to get back into the workforce. They are going have to eat up that $13 billion, which is in the bill.

[Economic Recovery Act (stimulus), November 6th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I suppose it is fair to say that the government really does not like to hear the facts. Conservatives react. I am encouraged by the fact that they like to shout me down when I put the facts on the table. That is okay. I will carry on and see how they perform.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer provides independent financial expertise to Parliament and lets members of the House know whether the projections the government puts on the table are reasonable.

Why does the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer exist? Because when the Conservatives were in opposition they said that the Liberals kept having surpluses but their budgets were not showing that high of a surplus, so we were obviously cooking the books. Each and every year there was a $3 billion contingency in Liberal budgets. If there were no extraordinary, unforeseen circumstances, there would be a $3 billion surplus, although the budget showed balanced books.

There also was a performance reserve. The government used the average of the economic forecasts for growth and interest rates, but it also took the low end of that so it was a conservative, cautious projection of how we would perform. If we achieved those targets, if it was as good as we thought, then the reserve would be used to ramp up additional programs on behalf of Canadians.

What has happened to the Parliamentary Budget Officer now? In the last article I saw, he said “Fund me or lose me”. The government has—