Rodger Cuzner

[Petitions, May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I stand to present a petition today signed by well over 200 constituents from Glace Bay, Catalone, Main-à-Dieu and Louisbourg, who have voiced concerns about the forthcoming legislation, the changes in the Fisheries Act, Bill C-45. There is a great deal of concern about provisions in the owner-operator regulations and transfer of licence.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to not go forward with debate and call upon the government to go forward with honest and open dialogue with fishing communities and fishers, so that any change in legislation will have the best impacts on those affected.

[April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, all too often when we engage in debate in this House some members refer to the broad national numbers and the departmental impacts from coast to coast. However, I think it is important that we share with the people at home following the debate just how this plays out on individual Canadians. The member's story about Joe Taylor and how the cancellation of this program had an impact on his life and the peril that it placed him in was important to bring to the debate.

What I am also taken by is how the government is not in any way able to justify the cancellation of this program.

A couple of interventions have been made by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills with no substantive reason, trying to reach back and say that this was what the Liberals did. In his last question he tried to identify representation that the front bench would have had. Prior to that, he talked about cuts that had been made in the mid-1990s and tried to equate them to these cuts and the cut to this program, which is a completely different set of circumstance. The government in the mid-1990s was certainly in a deficit situation and it was trying to right the books, but here we are faced with a government that has a surplus situation with no obvious reason to cut this program. It was not because of funding.

So, I would like my colleague--

[Committees of the House, April 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my well-respected colleague from Charlottetown, who chairs the public accounts committee and who sat on that committee in the last Parliament, certainly holds the respect of all members of the House when it comes to the workings of that committee.

I appreciate the fact that anybody watching this at home would see this as a fairly dry issue but, for all intents and purposes, it is the essence of what we do here in Parliament. We look after the accountability of government.

My colleague from Random—Burin—St. George's, my seatmate, once said, “letting government look after government is like leaving the dogs in charge of the meat”.

As this protocol was being developed by the public accounts committee, and with the PCO coming forward with its own position on it and, as I understand it, the Treasury Board Secretariat also came forward with its position on it, I believe it gives the wrong perception. It looks as if the government is setting the ground rules as opposed to Parliament. Is that the wrong perception or is there a fear of it being perceived as that if this is not an act of Parliament?

I would ask my colleague for his comments on that.

[Veterans Affairs, April 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, almost one year ago in this House I asked this question. When will the Prime Minister honour his written promise to my constituent Joyce Carter to immediately extend VIP benefits to all veterans and widows of the second world war and the Korean war?

The minister's excuse at the time was that he was waiting for the department to complete a full study on health services. Expert witnesses at the veterans affairs committee have stated there is nothing stopping the government from moving right now.

I will ask again, why does the Prime Minister continue to ignore the promise he made to Joyce Carter?

[Bill C-278, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to recognize and offer congratulations to a friend and colleague, the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria. Through his private member's bill, Bill C-278, an act to amend employment insurance sick benefits, he was able to bring attention to an issue that impacts on a significant number of Canadians.

All members of this House have heard the stories of Canadians living normal lives, raising families and contributing to their communities until their world is forever changed by cancer, a heart attack or a stroke.

As these brave individuals summon up the courage and energy to fight for what might be their life, they should not be burdened by the additional stress of not being able to provide for their families. Personal financial devastation should not be a side effect of cancer.

This bill was inspired by my colleague's staff, two of whom have waged their own personal battles with a serious illness, and was supported by all opposition members.

I congratulate my colleague from Sydney--Victoria and I call upon the government to find the heart to allow this bill to go forward.

[Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and commend my colleague, the chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, for bringing this private member's bill forward. I guess the essence of it is that the overall nature of lighthouses will continue to change significantly as they are being perceived as obvious tourist attractions in coastal communities.

Obviously, if we are looking at divestiture and getting them into the hands of community groups, there are going to have to be some supports put in place because there are obvious costs, such as maintenance, operation and associated liability.

Does my colleague envision an opportunity to work through one of the federal departments whose mandate is to promote tourism and community based tourism initiatives, such as ACOA and western diversification? Does he see a pool of money there?

As well, through the divestiture program, does he also envision that there would be an opportunity for private investment in developing these lighthouses as tourism draws and tourism infrastructure in those rural communities if a community group is not prepared to do so?

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a little disingenuous for my colleague across the way to pose the question that this is an either/or situation. In fact, in the past government, changes were made to the equalization over and above the Atlantic accord. The Conservatives are saying that this cannot be done and that is disingenuous for that party to pose the question in that way.

We know there is a moral obligation on the part of the government. It was stated by the current Prime Minister that there is a moral obligation for the government to follow through with its promises.

Does my colleague believe that this moral obligation has been shunned by the Prime Minister by turning his back on the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador?

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it was stated in this House on October 26, 2004 by the leader of the official opposition at the time, who is our current Prime Minister, that the Government of Canada had a moral obligation to keep its promises to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, no caps, no clawbacks, no limitations, no conditions, no big exceptions in the fine print.

Does my colleague feel that the Prime Minister, through this budget, has shunned his moral obligation to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia?

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way and I are going to end up having some kind of a complex here, because it seems that anything we have championed the government has turned its back on. Certainly veterans are one group that has been left out in the cold in this.

The people of Nova Scotia are getting short shrift in this budget. Another item that my colleague and I have worked on is small craft harbours. This House unanimously supported a reinvestment of $35 million, which is nowhere to be found in the budget. I guess the only advice is that we should split company and try some different committee work.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, out of respect for the Chair, I note that the government ripped out, tore out and emaciated that $1 billion investment in child care spaces.