Paul Szabo

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 14th, 2009]

With regards to Infrastructure funding by the government since 2005: (a) what projects have been funded; (b) what was the total value for each project; (c) how much of the funding was provided by the Province of Ontario for each project; (d) how much of the funding was provided by the City of Mississauga for each project; (e) on what date was each project approved; and(f) on what date was the expenditure made by the government for each project?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 14th, 2009]

With regards to June 2009 Report on the Economic Action Plan and specifically the Employment Insurance Stimulus Analysis on page 104, what are the detailed computations for each line item totalling $2.7 billion and what are the specific reasons why freezing of employment insurance rates constitute a stimulus?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 14th, 2009]

With regards to the Assisted Human Reproduction Act: (a) what regulations are required under the Act; (b) which of those regulations have been drafted; (c) which of those regulations have been referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health; and (d) what regulations have been adopted and enacted?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 14th, 2009]

With regards to the Canadian Institute for Health Research: (a) how much has their budget been for each year since their inception; (b) how much of that has been spent each year on research related to reproduction technologies; (c) how much of that has been spent each year on research related to stem cell research; and (d) how much of that has been spent each year on embryonic stem cell research?

[Petitions, September 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present yet another petition on the broken income trusts promise.

The Prime Minister said that there was no greater fraud than a promise not kept. Two elections ago, he emphatically promised that he would never put a tax on income trusts. The Conservative government recklessly broke that promise and imposed a 31.5% draconian tax on income trusts. Independent experts subsequently provided Parliament with clear evidence that the finance minister's decision on income trusts was based on flawed methodology and incorrect assumptions.

I think we have presented well over 10,000 petitions in the House asking the Government of Canada to acknowledge that the financial justification for imposing the tax was flawed, to apologize to Canadians who were unfairly harmed by the reckless broken promise and, finally, to repeal the punitive 31.5% tax on income trusts.

[Employment Insurance Act, September 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for introducing his bill, a bill which I think all three opposition parties have supported in whole or in part for a long time. It is the government that has been resistant, although it appears now that it is prepared to come forward with some relief, which I think is helpful.

In the last budget the government proposed to establish a new employment insurance commission, which would be funded with some seed money and established to follow certain rules to make sure there is balance. That balance obviously depends on some circumstances.

I wonder if the member has taken into account the rules established for this proposed commission, which I understand will not start until 2012, and whether he has done any estimates as to what he or his party believe will be the actual cost of implementation. The government has indicated it will be some $4.5 billion. I wonder if the member has an idea of how much these provisions would cost if implemented.

[Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act, June 18th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am getting a little concerned as we move through some of these justice bills. It seems that rather than debating the substance of the bill and determining whether there are compelling reasons that approval in principle, passage at second reading, should be supported, it seems to be drifting to sending it to committee and letting others determine whether there is evidence of this, that and the other thing.

Our responsibility is to do the work at the beginning of the process. If the members cannot make reasoned arguments that an important issue such as the faint hope clause should or should not be supported, bills should be referred to committee directly rather than being put in this place.

What assurance does the member have that should the bill pass at second reading that it would be in order to make a motion that would kill the faint hope clause itself? It may be out of order simply because approval in principle has already been given by the House at second reading.

I raise it because it seems that it is just too easy for this place not to do the in-depth research, not to consult, not to push the government for information on the basis of the bill and just send it to committee to get others to do our work.

[Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act, June 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member will recall that in the last Parliament, I believe during the first session, there were a series of justice bills related to the Criminal Code. Then after prorogation, instead of having a series of bills, many of those were not reinstated at the same point. In fact, they were put into an omnibus type bill after there were complaints that the justice committee had been bogged down and was unable to keep up with the individual bills.

Now we find ourselves back in the same position where we have another series of bills. These clearly could have been included in an omnibus bill to allow the justice committee to have virtually the same witnesses to consider the issues of punishment, with which most of them deal.

Would the member care to opine as to why the government is not serious about dealing with these bills by putting them in a form which is most efficient for the Parliament of Canada?

[Petitions, June 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition concerning public safety officers.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that police officers and firefighters risk their lives on a daily basis in the execution of their duties, that employment benefits provided to them are often insufficient to compensate their families for those who are killed in the line of duty, that the public mourns a loss when one of them loses their life in the line of duty and wish to support in a tangible way the surviving families in their time of need.

The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to establish a fund known as the public safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of families of public safety officers killed in the line of duty.

[Committees of the House, June 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics entitled “The Access to Information Act: First Steps Towards Renewal”.

This report outlines the work that the committee has done with regard to potential changes to the Access to Information Act. Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report within 120 days of its presentation.

I would like to thank all hon. members who participated on the committee, permanent members and also those who participated in support of the committee. Our thanks as well to the House of Commons and Library of Parliament personnel, the clerk, the research analysts, translators, and other technical and support personnel who were invaluable in helping us to organize our hearings for this report and reports throughout this Parliament.