Paul Szabo

[Petitions, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, flowing from the recent visit by our Canadian firefighters to Parliament Hill, I would like to present a petition on behalf of a number of petitioners who would like to point out to 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, and that the employment benefits of these public safety officers often provide insufficient compensation to the families of those who lose their lives in the line of duty.

The public also mourns the loss of those public safety officers, police officers and firefighters who are killed in the line of duty. Those Canadians wish to provide support in a tangible way to the surviving families in their time of need. Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to establish a public fund known as the public safety officers' compensation fund for the benefit of families of public safety officers, police officers and firefighters who are killed in the line of duty.

[Petitions, May 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I want to present a new petition that came about from a visit to Parliament Hill by firefighters from across the country.

The petitioners state that police officers and firefighters are required to place their lives at risk in the execution of their duties on a daily basis. They also state that the employment benefits of police officers and firefighters often do not provide sufficient compensation for the families of those who are killed in the line of duty. They also state that the public mourns when a public safety officer loses his or her life in the line of duty and that the public wishes to support in a tangible way the surviving families at 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 police officers, firefighters and other public safety officers killed in the line of duty.

[Petitions, May 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a second petition.

I had the opportunity to address several hundred students who were here for the march for life. It is on the subject matter of legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception until natural death.

The petitioners would like to remind us that Canada is a country that respects human rights and includes in its Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that everyone has the right to life. They also point out that it has been 40 years, since May 14, 1969, when Parliament changed the law to permit abortion, and also that since January 28, 1988, Canada has not had a law to protect the lives of the unborn child.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to pass legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception until natural death.

[Petitions, May 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, and as certified by the Clerk of Petitions, I am pleased to present yet another income trust broken promise petition on behalf of my constituent, Mr. Neville Schepmyer.

The petitioners remember the Prime Minister boasting about his apparent commitment to accountability when he said “the greatest fraud is a promise not kept”.

The petitioners want to remind the Prime Minister that he promised never to tax income trusts. He recklessly broke that promise. He imposed a 31.5% punitive tax, which permanently wiped out over $25 billion of the hard-earned retirement savings of over 2 million Canadians, particularly seniors.

The petitioners call upon the Conservative minority government, first, to admit that the decision to tax income trust was based on flawed methodology and incorrect assumptions; secondly, to apologize to those who were unfairly harmed by this broken promise, this tax increase; and finally, to repeal the 31.5% tax on income trusts.

[Committees of the House, May 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in relation to the main estimates, 2009-10, vote 40, under Justice.

In accordance with its order of reference, your committee has considered vote 40 under Justice in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010, and reports the same, less the amount granted in interim supply.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, May 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. I have the releases as well.

One member said to me yesterday that the reason their party wants to get this bad bill to committee, which they said they would defeat, is because it will give them an opportunity to embarrass the government on each and every clause. In other words, it is a political stunt.

In my view, if we send this very important Bill C-8 to committee, we waste time and the bill will not be passed. We have to put the interests of aboriginal Canadians ahead of our partisan interests.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, May 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, let me put it as simply as I can. The reason I recommended that the bill not pass at second reading and go to committee for discussion is that the first nations have clearly and unitedly said this bill is flawed and it must be defeated and withdrawn. I accept their assessment. I have looked at the details. I am very comfortable that they have good arguments.

They have asked for appropriate consultation before the bill is crafted, and we, as legislators, must listen. That consultation did not happen. That is unacceptable, and that is why we have to defeat the bill. Let them have the consultations and we can participate in those consultations with the AFN.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, May 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I understand what the member is saying, but he wants a bill that is going to be defeated to be the basis for discussion at committee. That makes no sense. The AFN, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the AFN Women's Council have all rejected this bill, for one reason.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, May 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. We need to get a bill to committee to hear the witnesses and work with this. However, the point is that the AFN and the Native Women's Association of Canada, in conjunction with the AFN Women's Council, have united together to say they reject this bill because it does not work.

It is not in the best interest of aboriginal women to bring forward a bill that cannot possibly pass at committee and spend all that time debating and discussing it. The important thing is to get the bill right and get the right bill to committee so we can deliver appropriate legislation.

I understand the member's concern, but there is no way to repair this bill at committee. Once it is passed at second reading with approval in principle, substantive amendments cannot be made at committee. Therefore, this bill cannot be fixed. I understand that. The AFN understands that, and the Native Women's Association of Canada definitely understands that.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, May 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament, I have a duty to consult as well. I did consult, and I heard what the first nations had to say. I listened. I looked at the documents, item by item, about all the ways this bill did not meet the test of good legislation.

I am not here giving my opinion. I am here, as a voice, on behalf of Mr. Powless, the first nations, and Chief Fontaine. That is their position.

The member should reconsider going after members who bring this information to the House and consider the best interests of the first nations of Canada, who are the stakeholders here.