Paul Szabo

[Committees of the House, June 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, two reports, one of which is the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics on the certificate of nomination of Karen E. Shepherd, the nominee for the position of Commissioner of Lobbying. Your committee has considered the nomination of the proposed appointment of Karen E. Shepherd as Commissioner of Lobbying and reports its support for her appointment.

I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics on the funding of the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada. The chair has been authorized to table this report in the House to advise the House of a specific motion adopted by the committee wherein the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics notes with deep concern the decisions of the Treasury Board regarding funding for the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada and calls on the government to immediately end its interference in the budget and mandate of the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada by ensuring approval of the full complement of resources requested and recommended by the advisory panel on the funding and oversight of officers of Parliament for the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada.

[Petitions, June 9th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, and as certified by the Clerk of Petitions, I am pleased to present yet another petition concerning the plight of families whose public safety officer spouses have been killed in the line of duty.

The petitioners would like to point out that police officers and firefighters are required to place their lives at risk in the execution of their duties on a daily basis, that the employment benefits for police officers and firefighters often provide insufficient compensation to the families of those who are killed while on duty, that the public mourns the loss when one of them loses their life in the line of duty and that they wish to support in a tangible way the surviving families at their time of need.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to establish a fund known as the public safety officers' compensation fund for the benefit of the families of public safety officers who are killed in the line of duty.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I tend to agree with the assessment of the hon. member, that there does not seem to be good faith in this motion. I expect the press release to come out, saying that the opposition parties are not serious about doing work. That is just not the case and I think we can prove it.

When we start this place each day, we say a prayer. In it, we say that we make good laws and wise decisions. Good laws take important debate in the House and good work in committees. If the government House leader and the parliamentary secretary wanted, as they put it, to act in the best interests of the country, they would call Bill C-23 on the Colombia free trade agreement and let us deal with a tough bill. They would also call Bill C-8 on matrimonial real property, which I do not believe enjoys the support of the majority of the House and which, if defeated, would give the government an opportunity to go back and commence negotiations and consultations with first nations in Canada so we could deal with an extremely important matter for Canadians.

Would the member agree?

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government laid out the bills that in the government's view were important to Canadians.

Bill C-26 on auto theft has been at the justice committee for some time now. Bill C-34 went to the justice committee yesterday. I do not know how the committee does two bills at one time. Bill C-35 was introduced on June 1. It has not even started second reading and I am sure second reading will take up a lot of time. Bill C-36 was introduced on June 5 and will ultimately go to the justice committee.

Bill C-6 is here in the House at report stage and can commence. That would certainly be one piece of legislation. Bill C-31, the tobacco bill, went to committee on June 3. The committee needs to call witnesses. We will not see that bill before June 23. Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, is the last one on the list in terms of government importance, and it would appear the government has no intention whatsoever of calling this bill because of the difficulties.

What the government has not included is Bill C-8, which I think is very important.

It appears to me the government has selected priorities which in fact are not the priorities of Canadians and do not justify extended hours for no progress whatsoever.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding of what has happened in the past with respect to extended hours is that it has been meant to bring certain legislation to a certain point of closure, like the end of second reading debate and referral to a committee or to deal with reports.

Many of the bills on the list are in the middle of second reading or they are at committee. Very few of them are actually ready to come before the House until they are either reported back from committee or debate is completed, like on Bill C-8.

Does the member believe there are enough of these items, or is this just a list like the other 10 justice bills that we had in the last Parliament that were never dealt with?

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader has laid out very clearly some of the background and opportunities that the extension of sitting hours brings.

He listed the bills which he recognized to be important legislation that we need to move forward. He emphasized important legislation. One of the bills that is not on the list is Bill C-8 regarding matrimonial real property. A hoist motion was moved on that bill. The hoist motion was not successful. However, that should have indicated to the government that this important matter relating to aboriginal Canadians was something that should be dealt with.

The member will know that the bill did not enjoy the support of any first nations group or aboriginal women's group. I would simply ask the House leader if it is the government's position that Bill C-8 is not an important bill, and if so, will he withdraw that bill and commence proper negotiations and consultations with first nations?

[Income Trusts, June 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister broke his promise never to tax income trusts and imposed a 31.5% punitive tax.

He wiped out over $25 billion of retirement savings of over 2 million Canadians, particularly seniors.

He argued that pension income splitting would offset the loss, but the facts show otherwise.

In 2007, the benefit to seniors was only $163 million. As well, only 30% of seniors have qualifying pensions. If we eliminate those who have no partners or who are at the lowest tax bracket or whose partner is in the same tax bracket, then only 12% of seniors actually benefit.

The Conservatives took money from seniors with no pensions and gave a fraction of that money to high income earning seniors who have a partner with little income.

It is time for the government to be honest with seniors. It should admit its devastating mistake, apologize for misleading seniors, and repeal the punitive 31.5% tax on income trusts.

[Points of Order, June 5th, 2009]

There is no bill.

[Points of Order, June 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I do understand that there was some flurry of activity over there. Government members said there was no bill and there was no response by way of standing up when that item was called.

I do not personally have a problem, but we do have procedures in this place. When we move down the list under routine proceedings, our convention has always been to ask for consent of the House to revert to an item, so that a matter that came up subsequently could be dealt with. I am just raising this from the standpoint of the practice and procedure of the House.

[Petitions, June 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing 36, and as certified by the Clerk of Petitions, I am pleased to present yet another petition concerning public safety officers who lose their lives in the line of duty. As we know, firefighters visited Parliament recently.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that police officers and firefighters are required to place their lives at risk in the execution of their duties on a daily basis, that the employment benefits of these public safety officers often provide insufficient compensation to the families of those who are killed in the line of duty and that the public mourns the loss of public safety officers killed in the line of duty and wish to support, in a tangible way, the surviving members in their time of need.

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