Rob Nicholson

[The Budget, March 7th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, perhaps the hon. member could clarify something. It is quite correct that the chief of defence said that he welcomed new expenditures in defence. It seems to me the hon. member is going much too far. He somehow then equates that the military is happy. I think those were his words. I am sure the military is a long way from being happy. I do not think the hon. member would like to leave that impression with the House.

The neglect of Canada's military is a national disgrace. I am sure that if we asked anybody in the military if they wanted to see another 50 bucks going into the military, they would say, “Yes, of course, $50, $50 million, $5 billion”. They want to see billions of dollars.

It is going too far for this hon. member to say the military is happy. Putting the general on the spot when he makes himself available to the press, of course, he is going to say he wants to see new funding for the military, but what the Liberals have done to the military in the past and what the military might expect from the Liberals in the future, I think goes way beyond that. I would like him to comment on that.

I would also like him to comment on articles that are starting to appear in the newspapers on this whole subject of clawbacks. This is a classic Liberal trick. The government announces $100. If we look closely enough, we would find out that the $50 has been announced any number of times. So, that is part of the $100 announcement. Then there is something called efficiencies, where we are expected to find savings within the $100.

I want to give the member some time to comment on both. Are they pleased, and tell me about the clawback in the federal proposals on defence?

[Petitions, February 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by over 100 people from the city of Niagara Falls and the greater Fort Erie area, including Stevensville, Wainfleet, Port Colborne, St. Catharines and Welland.

The petitioners state that marriage is a sacred institution that forms the basis of the family unit and that Parliament overwhelmingly affirmed its understanding of marriage as a union between a single man and a single woman to the exclusion of all others.

They call upon Parliament to reaffirm the heterosexual nature of marriage and to evoke section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Department of Foreign Affairs Act, February 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on Bill C-32 members of the Conservative Party will vote against the motion.

[Department of International Trade Act, February 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative members will be voting against this motion.

[Airports, February 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is a report from Transport Canada indicating that the government thinks it needs a private air terminal for cabinet ministers to keep them comfortable and isolated from the public. Besides keeping them isolated, the new terminal would also provide “a drop-off point for catering or flowers”. Is that not a beautiful thing?

How bad is it that ministers cannot mix with ordinary Canadians? Would the minister not be better off scrapping this idea and telling his colleagues that if they do not want to talk to ordinary Canadians, they should lock themselves in their offices until the next election?

[Border Security, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Niagara Regional Police Service patrols one of the largest geographical areas of any municipal police service. It provides policing and public safety for 12 municipalities and 430,000 people.

What most people will find surprising is that the Niagara Regional Police Service also has the primary responsibility for patrolling 120 kilometres of international border and this cost is picked up by municipal taxpayers. This is wrong.

The federal government should have another look at the Canadian Constitution. Border security is a federal responsibility. How big does the federal surplus have to get before the federal government starts living up to its obligations and starts paying for the protection of Canadians?

It is not that complicated. The federal government should do what the federal government is supposed to do: pay for international security.

[Income Tax Act, February 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Essex. He is picking up on a real injustice that has taken place in Canada and that affects about 85,000 Canadians. I want to point out that a lot of those Canadians live in border communities. The hon. member is from the Windsor area. Hundreds of those individuals live in the Niagara Falls, Fort Erie and Niagara-on-the-Lake area. They are very much disadvantaged and hard done by.

What the parliamentary secretary did not point out was that those social security premiums those individuals paid all those years were not tax deductible against their American income tax. In fact, Canadians working in the United States were taxed at the very highest rate, much higher than if they had been residents of the United States. They were taxed at the highest rate. They did not get a deduction for the social security premiums, unlike his example of the individual who collects Canada pension plan. That individual did get those deductions all the way through. The 50% inclusion rate was a matter of being fair. What was unfair, was that it was changed.

He and all members of the Liberal Party know that this was very unfair to people who had planned their lives and their retirement upon getting American social security and then the tax changed from 50% to 85%. This is why I applaud and completely support the initiatives by the member for Essex. These people should not have to wait until there is a Conservative government. It should be done now. It should be done in this Parliament. This should be rectified. They do not have to wait until the Conservatives are the government of the country again.

[Supply, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised that the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell spent most of his time praising the Minister of Agriculture and the parliamentary secretaries and telling us how hard they work. Would it not have been better if he had spent his time finding out what it is they are working at? He must have heard of the problems with this particular program from the farmers in his area.

He would be aware as well that farmers in my area are into the tender fruit business and grape production. They, too, have a great concern about this. I do not think they are that dissimilar from farmers anywhere in this country. They have serious problems with this program.

The member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell would know that the CAIS program succeeded the NISA program and that there were problems with that. It was not perfect and this program replaced it. The ironic part about this is that all the farmers I talked to said that they wished they had NISA back. NISA was better than the one that replaced it.

I think there is an identity of interest among farmers right across this country. They have identified problems with this program. Would the member not be better off not being an apologist for the members of his own government and making excuses by saying that they work hard? Good heavens, he should find out what they are working at and tell them to get working on some of these problems, because he must have heard about the problems from farmers. I hear from farmers in the Niagara areas that this program is not working and that it should be fixed.

We in the Conservative Party are prepared to do that. Where are the suggestions from the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell? Why does he not tell his friend, the Minister of Agriculture, and all those parliamentary secretaries to get working on something that will help farmers because this is not doing the trick and he knows it. Why does he not do that for a change?

[Committees of the House, February 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I believe you will find unanimous consent in the House for the following motion:

That the membership on the Standing Committee of Procedure and House Affairs be amended by replacing the name of John Reynolds with the name of Jay Hill.

[Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2004, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate the member for Medicine Hat on his comments to the House on this particular bill. I was interested in some comments he made toward the end that reiterated a point he made earlier, which was that he would have been pleased to have seen something come forward from the government that would result in tax cuts, and that while it is supportable that we are moving ahead to avoid double taxation, I think he quite correctly points out that most Canadians would be very pleased to get some sort of tax break. Certainly they have not seen it from the government.

The parliamentary secretary said, and I think I am quoting him, that he agrees with just about everything that the member for Medicine Hat said. Since the member for Medicine Hat made a point on two occasions in his speech of mentioning that he would like to see tax cuts, I suppose one could take some comfort from that, but this brings me to the question I want to ask the member for Medicine Hat.

He said in his concluding remarks that he looks forward to the day when he sees the government come forward with a bill that will cut taxes for Canadians. It is on this point that I want to ask him a question.

After seeing the performance of the government, does he think that is a realistic option? Is that just something that he hopes to see from the government? Or is it more realistic to say that Canadians will have to wait until the member for Medicine Hat is part of a government and he brings in those tax cuts? I would ask him to comment on that.