Rodger Cuzner

[Budget Implementation Act, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that was one aspect of the budget that really jumped off the page when I saw the $350,000 house. I know for some people in our urban centres a $350,000 house is not a strange thing, but one thing this misses is rural Canada. I have a coastal constituency. I probably have small streets in my riding that would not have $350,000 worth of real estate on them.

That is the sad part. It is the people who live in those homes, good Canadians trying to raise families and kids, and contribute to this country that this budget leaves behind. That is who this budget totally misses the mark on and that is why I will not be supporting this budget.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, what I am asking is whether Canadians will use those deductions. Yes, they will use those deductions. Is a cheese sandwich going to feed a starving nation? I do not think so.

I believe the purpose of government, through the budget, is to elicit positive outcomes and make positive impacts. I will use the $80 tax deduction. I have three boys that take part in sports. Will it have any type of impact on whether I register my children in sports programs? It will have absolutely none.

Is being able to deduct the tax on books going to make a difference as to whether I am going to encourage my oldest to go to university next year? It will have none. There are Canadians who will look at the bottom line, when sitting down with their sons and daughters and making a conscious decision as to whether they will be able to afford post-secondary education.

This was an opportunity for the government to invest in our young people. This was an opportunity to give them something that would encourage them to pursue post-secondary education and the government failed miserably on this account.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, all colleagues in the House today would agree that it would be somewhat of an understatement to say that this was an extremely interesting week in this chamber for a number of reasons. None more relevant was the fact that we were graced with the presence of our Olympians and our Paralympians on Monday past. These individuals are a great collection of wonderful Canadians, our best and most committed. It was a pleasure having them here so we could show our appreciation for their efforts on behalf of all Canadians.

This was followed by a reception hosted by the minister responsible for sports. During the reception the Prime Minister spoke about his respect for the athletes and the fact that they understood the importance of hard work, commitment and sacrifice. That is why they are the best in the country and quite often the best in the world. They understand the importance of these attributes.

I could not help but think that the words somehow rang hollow coming from the Prime Minister in light of what he put forward to the House and the country in his budget. All Canadians remember the hardships and understand fully the difficult situations they faced through the mid-nineties. Tough decisions and sacrifices were made by all Canadians, so that the Liberal government could write the fiscal picture for this country. It was a committed effort done by the previous government and it created a great deal of hardship in many sectors. However, it was necessary and I believe Canadians understood it was necessary, and they were willing to sacrifice the short term pain for the long term gain.

We had to balance the books and create a surplus, so that the Government of Canada could then reinvest in programs important to all Canadians. We made significant reinvestment in health care and in our military. Through all sectors of federal responsibility, we were able to make those reinvestments. Furthermore, Canadians showed patience.

The Prime Minister does not understand that this is a time when investments should be made. It is time for Canadians to realize the benefits of the tough days they went through and the tough decisions and sacrifices they made. Instead, he put forward a budget that squanders a tremendous opportunity. Good things could have been done through this budget, but the Prime Minister has missed the opportunity and missed it poorly.

The budget is truly political in nature. It offers a great deal of short term excitement. I think it would be best termed a retail budget because a lot of fancy things, a lot of sexy things, have been put in the window. It is going to take a certain amount of time before Canadians realize that this budget is really just a facade. A member of the NDP indicated that what we see is not what we are going to get. This is going to play out more as we go down the road.

I began my comments regarding our Olympians and Paralympians who were with us on Monday.

When I look at some of the upfront tax deductions, the tax credit for sport registration looks impressive: a $500 tax deduction for one's son or daughter joining a sport. When it comes time to fill out one's income tax return, though, that will equate to $80. Will $80 make the difference as to whether or not a family enrolls their children in a sports program? I do not think so. That will not have any type of impact at all.

Previous members that spoke had indicated their disappointment in this budget and the approach that the government has taken on child care. Certainly, this budget falls far short in those areas as well.

Had this government followed through with some of its campaign promises and had this government, and I will go back to the sports credit again, identified in this budget the 1% of the health care budget that was supposed to be attributed to sport and fitness in this country, then I believe the benefactors would have been the young people of this country, the people who pay the price, who understand what commitment can bring, what hard work can bring, and what sacrifice can bring. It would have allowed the next generation to be inspired and to strive to attain those same types of heights as the athletes who graced us with their presence here in this House.

This budget falls far short. An $80 tax deduction for registering one's son or daughter is almost embarrassing.

We see the same thing with education. We know that the next great challenge here is allowing young Canadians access to post-secondary education.

Certainly, the proposal that was put forward by our party during the last election was one that, I think, made great sense: 50% of the tuition in the first year, up to $3,000, and the same in the last year. There was an incentive there to, first, pursue a post-secondary education and second, to complete that post-secondary education. That was real money that would be going to young people in this country to pursue an education and to make a greater contribution to not just our economy but, really, to our society. Those would have been real dollars.

However, what do we get from this government? We got a tax deduction on books. What is it going to be when it plays out? Perhaps a young student might get one free book each year. It is far too little and certainly falls far short of the mark.

There is going to be a realization, there is going to be a reality here, and that reality check will come next year when Canadians sit down to do their income tax returns and they find that the tax credits and the tax deductions that are obviously the theme of this budget just do not make it, just come far too short.

We have seen in the House this week, through the motion that was put to this House on Wednesday on Afghanistan, the threat by the Prime Minister that had that motion not gone through he was going to the polls within a year. We have seen our Minister of Public Safety talk about the gun registry and holding things over for a year.

I think this government wants to go to the polls before Canadians sit down and do their income tax returns next year. Put that on the record and now it is in Hansard. This government knows that Canadians will see through this veil of investment and they will see that there is nothing in this budget for them. Is it going to improve their lot in life? Is it going to close the gap between the rich and the poor?

They will realize at that time that this government has failed them and that this budget has failed them. I know that the Prime Minister understands that they will realize this, and that is why we will be at the polls before income tax time next year.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I tried to share with the House some anecdotal information, but I know, for example, that in areas of democracy, we are over there to try to support a fragile democracy. When we look back over the past four years, we now have 12 million people who have registered for a democratic process.

I talked about how there was virtually no public school system four years ago. There now are three million students registered in the public school system who go to school each day. One-third of those are young females. We did not see that four years ago, so there are obvious improvements--

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, indeed my colleague and I worked together on a project for another group of heroes, our firefighters. Hopefully we can resurrect that in this Parliament.

When we talk to the brave men and women who have seen action in the theatre, they understand they are making a difference in the lives of individual. In order to impact on the bigger picture, it is little victories, one by one. That is what is imperative.

Kabul has come a long way. It has shown tremendous improvement in a great number of areas. Kandahar remains a challenge, but I know there are victories to be had there.

I want to quote my colleague from Scarborough--Guildwood. It came out in our caucus meeting today. It will probably be in the Globe and Mail tomorrow, but regardless, it is worth repeating and getting it on the record. His comment was that there was no military solution for Afghanistan; however, there was no solution in Afghanistan without the military. That is the truth about Afghanistan.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I begin my comments this evening by offering condolences to the family of Nichola Goddard, a soldier who was lost today, and certainly to her friends and colleagues. I know that tragedy like this is shared by all members in the chamber and indeed by all Canadians. I think tonight's tragedy further underlines the importance and significance of tonight's debate.

Certainly over the last evening, and then again all day today, we in the Liberal caucus have had an opportunity to discuss this very important motion placed before the House this evening. There is a wide array of interventions, of shared opinions, which I believe for the most part are intellectually shared, brutally intellectually and brutally honestly shared, I believe, but respectfully shared as well.

I understand that among my caucus colleagues there are concerns just with the process that has been put forward by the government in coming forward with this motion and with the expedience that is necessary with this particular motion.

We look back to the Dutch decision. That has been referenced several times this evening. They were 10 months in debating that outcome, that extension of two years, so there is some scepticism on this side as to whether or not this is a political ploy on the part of the government.

That said, I came to this debate this evening for two reasons. I came to make sure that our soldiers, our men and women in uniform, and the parents of our soldiers understand that we support them, that this party supports their efforts and that in fact we support their mission.

I have listened to the entire debate and I will say that I also came to this debate for assurances, because I supported the initial intervention. I understood the rationale behind the initial intervention. I came here this evening wanting several questions answered.

I wanted to find out if in fact the essence of the mission would be changed. I wanted to find out if in fact there was going to be a significant number of troops added to the mission. I wanted to find out, if we were asked by the UN to intervene in Darfur, in Haiti or one of the other hot spots in the world, that we would be able to do that.

What I got tonight from the Minister of National Defence and Minister of Foreign Affairs were their assurances that the essence of this mission would not change. All of us in the chamber know that the circumstances on the ground in Kandahar have changed. We understand that it has been amplified. It has become tougher, but if it were an easy job, it would not have been Canada that would have been asked to intervene. They would have asked a lesser country.

When things get tough, that is not the time to flinch, and that is why tonight I will stand to support the motion. We all wrestle with the same questions. People come to me all the time and ask what in the name of God our young men and women are doing in Afghanistan. Why are we in Afghanistan? I think that over time we have come to learn what troubles face that nation.

People are able to connect the dots when they watch the evening news and when they think back to 9/11. They know that Afghanistan was just a breeding ground for terrorism. They know that terrorist cells were rampant within that country. When they look at the pictures on TV, they see the squalor, the poverty and the hunger. They see women being abused and terrorized. As for education in Afghanistan, there was virtually no public education system five years ago. People here understand that and they know that at the root of the squalor is the lack of education.

Therefore, we could not stand idly by. That is why I supported this intervention initially. We did not go over there on our own accord. It was a unilateral intervention. We were asked by the UN to join in a NATO mission. We stood, we did the best we could, and we have made a tremendous impact.

Canadians must know that we are making a difference there. For anyone watching this debate tonight it has been articulated. They can see the increase in democracy and in the governance systems. We have been able to make inroads in working with the judicial system. Reference was made to the lack of a public education system. Now 3 million children are enrolled school.

We had a significant take note debate in April in the House. It garnered full support from all parties in the House for the troops and for the mission.

I spoke with the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming earlier. He had the opportunity to travel to Afghanistan and had been in Kabul. He has seen the things that are taking place now. People are walking the streets. They are doing commerce on the streets. Life is far from normal, but far improved from where they were four years ago.

Kandahar is where Kabul was four years ago. It has been tough. There has been sacrifice for sure, but Canadians have made a difference. We have developed infrastructure. We have invested, as I said, in education and fresh water. We have addressed human rights issues. We have been able to do that over the last number of years. As Canadians, I believe it is expected of us to stand until the job is complete.

I want to identify with the troops. In my riding of Cape Breton—Canso we have a great number of young men and women who have volunteered for the cause and have pursued a career in the armed forces. In my conversations with them, they understand the great task that they face in Afghanistan, but they are up to task.

I want to read to the House an interview that took place this morning on CBC Radio. The House was very saddened when we lost Corporal Paul Davis, a 28 year old who was killed when his armoured vehicle collided with a taxi and flipped over near Kandahar. He left behind a wife and two young girls. It was a sad event. His dad, Jim Davis, is very well known to many of the Nova Scotia MPs in the House and is very respected. He is a great Canadian and obviously a great father. In the interview this morning, Jim Davis said that he hopes all the political parties agree to extend the mission. He said:

I know our troops over there do like to know that they are supported by Canadians at home. The bottom line is, you want a united effort behind this mission.

I respect each member's decision, as they stand and vote this evening, but I want to reiterate that I will be supporting the motion.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was able to weigh in with some comments on deterrence. I would like him to share with the House a few comments on incentives. The government has put in the window something that is fairly attractive, a $500 deduction for young people for the registry of sport. When Canadians do their income tax next spring, they will realize this equates to about an $80 benefit.

Where we have our greatest impact on young people, where we have our greatest impact on young athletes is when our premier athletes excel. We see the stars who are created over the Olympics and how that motives and inspires the next generation.

If the Conservatives had come through with their campaign promise of 1% of the health budget for sport and fitness, it may have made some kind of difference. Instead they offered this paltry exemption of $80, as my colleague indicated a bus pass. What impacts will be elicited from these types of tax exemptions?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, a great deal of my colleague's presentation was focused on the responsibility taken by the previous government in paying down debt. One aspect of debt repayment that stands out in my mind was when the previous government honoured the offshore accords and issued upfront payments to both the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and to my home province of Nova Scotia for offshore royalties.

Approximately $800 million was put forward to the province of Nova Scotia and it very wisely applied the money to its debt. Prior to that, the province of Nova Scotia had the worst per capita debt in all of Canada. Paying down the provincial debt has had a significant impact. The issuance of that cheque to the province of Nova Scotia and its application on the debt has loosened up approximately $40 million annually that may be used for roads, hospitals and education.

What would the $68 billion that has been applied to the debt over the years equate to in a free balance on the budget each year? Where should Canadians have expected that amount of money to have been invested?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, May 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments put forward by my colleague in his presentation. I respect his understanding for the aboriginal issues and the work he has done to date. I would like him to take a moment to speak to the on ground issues regarding the actions or inactions of the government through the budget in not investing in aboriginal issues, in not supporting the Kelowna accord. We could talk in broad terms about the immense amount of dollars that have been taken from that file, but how do the actions of the government impact on people on the ground and aboriginal people across this country?

[Employment Insurance, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last spring an all party committee on EI reform made recommendations to assist workers in seasonal industries. The past Liberal government adopted many of these recommendations and initiated a number of pilot projects.

From this committee, only one party put forward a dissenting report. Unfortunately for seasonal workers in our country, it was the new Conservative government. Now the inaction of the minister on this file will place the benefits of 100,000 claimants at risk.

Why does the government not understand and not respect our seasonal workers?