Rodger Cuzner

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have one question in particular on the speech my colleague shared with the House. I think what Canadians are beginning to realize, and they will realize it even more when they come to do their income tax next year, is that what they put in the window on this budget falls far short of making any kind of difference in the average life of a Canadian.

Yesterday I mentioned in the House the tax credit of $500 for sport registration for children under 16 years of age. When Canadians come to do their taxes, it will come down to about $80. Will that have any type of impact? Will that elicit any change in behaviour, when mom and dad are sitting down at the kitchen table figuring out whether or not they can put their young ones into gymnastics, minor hockey or whatever the sport might be? Is there any true benefit in that?

It is nice. It is 80 bucks. I will claim that. I have three boys who are involved and that is great, but will it prompt any kind of change in behaviour? Will it address obesity, health and fitness issues?

My question for the member is, why did his party not follow through with their campaign promises? They are hurting themselves over there patting themselves on the back. Why did they not follow through with the campaign promise that the Conservatives would allocate 1% of the total health budget, which would have been about $400 million, to sport and fitness? Where is that in the budget? I cannot find it. Would the member show me where that is in the budget?

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question. What happened was that in November, members of the NDP turned their backs on those students. They had a chance to pass that budget. They had a chance to help out students across the country and they turned their backs on them.

I suggest that the member stand and face that camera, fold her arms and apologize to the students across the country for jumping in bed and calling the premature election that resulted in that money being lost to our students.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will appreciate that, but is it going to make any kind of difference in whether or not my kids are going to take part in sports?

The budget falls so far short. The budget lacks vision. For the consultations the Conservatives must have gone to Sunnyvale Trailer Park with Ricky, Julian and Bubbles to get the depth, the scope and the broad-thinking range for a budget such as this one.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I guess what my hon. colleague is asking of me and what I will have to ask myself is whether they have gone far enough. The answer is simply absolutely not. They come up far too short. The provisions for the students are not enough. We are looking at savings of maybe $80 on a textbook.

What we put forward in the last election was $6,000 in cash to students for tuition for the first year, to encourage students to pursue and post-secondary education, and on the final year of a degree to also cover half the tuition fee, up to a maximum of $3,000. We did that to encourage students to complete their post-secondary education. That would go much further in helping young students.

I will use the $80 deduction. I have three boys in sports. They play hockey and soccer. I am like many other dads across this country.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate today on behalf of the constituents of Cape Breton--Canso, who have been so kind as to send me to Ottawa for a third term, and speak on their behalf. It is a great honour, a great privilege, one that I know each person who stands in the House understands and respects.

The duty I am tasked with today is to bring to this House the concerns of my constituents about the new government and its budget. Through the many interventions I have heard, either when I was going through my riding or through people contacting my office, a number of concerns about the budget have been brought to my attention.

Various items in the budget have raised flags, and when we look at what has distinguished the party across the way in its new seats as the government, raising flags is not one. It has shown more of an unwillingness to lower flags, but that is a discussion for another day.

Today I want to talk about the shortcomings in the budget and just how offensive it is to Canadians. What it clearly demonstrates is lack of vision and lack of scope and just how limited the new government is, first of all in the Speech from the Throne and then with the budget. Both show just how limited this new government is.

This budget could be termed a retail budget. It looks pretty fancy in the window, but when we drill down and actually try to apply it to our situation at home, we find that it comes up far short. I am going to refer to a number of examples. Really, we can look at this budget as being short-sighted. It is a politically expedient budget, but as far as anything to help this country move forward is concerned, it is very limited. I know that as Canadians we are seeing through the veneer of this budget.

I will start with what a number of government members have referred to: the $500 tax deduction for registration for minor sports. That sounds impressive, but when we drill down, it comes to $80 each year. Is that $80 going to make a difference between a husband and wife registering or not registering their son or daughter in a gymnastics program, a swimming program or minor hockey? I think not. Parents do this because they know the benefit of sports. They know that involving their sons and daughters in sports has a positive impact on them.

As the last government, we did the hard work on this. Rather than just bailing out with a tax deduction, a paltry $80, we worked with provincial and municipal governments and with stakeholders in order to develop infrastructure.

I look at my own backyard and the Port Hawkesbury Civic Centre in my riding. All three levels of government were involved. The community stepped up and built one of the finest facilities not just in Nova Scotia but in all of Atlantic and eastern Canada. It is outstanding. Mothers and fathers can take their children to the indoor ice facility, a full gym facility and a walking track. What we are seeing is that healthy lifestyles are being promoted because of this centre.

Would tax deductions have put this facility there? I think not. We see grandparents taking their young people to this arena, and it is such a beautiful facility that now they themselves are getting back into skating. It is having an impact all the way through.

Money would have been better spent if the government had invested in this type of infrastructure. It also would have better spent if the government had realized one of the promises of their campaign, that being that 1% of the health budget was to be attributed to health and fitness, to fitness and sport. If the government would have delivered on that, it would have increased the sport and fitness budget upwards of $300 million to $400 million, or in that vicinity, almost doubling the budget.

Did we see that in the budget? Again, I think not. There is no sign of it. There is absolutely nothing.

Therefore, the Conservatives stepped back from the infrastructure aspect of developing sport and fitness and they threw this $500 out the window, which is really $80 when we come to pay the tab.

We need to ask ourselves, what are tax deductions for? Because we want an impact. We want some kind of change.

This deduction is all about winning votes. It is not about getting kids more active in this country. It is not about addressing obesity in this country. It is politically motivated and we know it.

I have another example of the same thing, of retail politics and a retail budget: post-secondary education and support for post-secondary learning. This support is absent from the budget.

The Conservatives did come up with a tax deduction for books. When we get out our pen and paper and figure it out, we see that each Canadian student might get one free book each year. Is that going to make a difference? When mom and dad sit down with their sons and daughters to talk about whether or not they will embark on a post-secondary education and acquire something that is necessary in this new economy, is that free book going to make the difference? I do not think so.

Under the past government, initiatives were taken to address those who actually were in a situation where they were trying to make that decision. We can look at the millennium scholarship fund, the educational savings bond and the low income educational bond. There were those initiatives.

As well, there was the investment in research and development, which is where the past government got it and the new government has missed the boat. We are all aware of the brain drain from Canada in the early to mid-1990s. The hot topic, the most offensive thing and one of the greatest challenges we have ever experienced was the brain drain. The best and brightest went elsewhere to pursue research and development opportunities. We saw the best and the brightest go to other countries.

However, there were investments through the late 1990s. Investments were made after the financial mess was cleaned up and we were in a position where we could reinvest those dollars. Investments were made in post-secondary education. Investments were made in research and development. We stemmed that tide. We reversed that tide. Now we have people coming from other countries to study and do research in this country. That is why our post-secondary institutions have moved ahead.

The unemployment rate is at a 30 year low right now. That does not happen by accident. What prompts it is that governments are able to work with the stakeholders, with the people who know what tools are necessary on the ground. Governments give them tools. That is what the past government was able to do and that is what this government lacks in this budget.

The amount of our investment in research and development was the highest in the G-7. That is going to position us to go for a while. I hope the damage from this budget will not be too bad in the immediate future.

I know my time is running short, but I would have liked to get going on child care. The Conservatives talk about choice, but there is no choice. When we talk about development, I will say that the past government believed in investing in the development of new spaces and in the professionals on the ground, in working with young people in early education intervention.

Those are the things that each province in this country, all 10 provinces, sat down and worked with the federal government on in order to develop the core values of a child care platform. They signed off on those deals and the rug was pulled out from under them by the government. The government has come up with the $1,200 deduction, which really equates to about $800.

This budget falls far short, and that is why I will not be supporting it when it comes time to vote.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member touched on a number of aspects of the budget. There is one that several government members mentioned during their speeches today: specifically, the $500 tax deduction for registration for minor sports for those under 16 years of age.

Coming from that type of background and having three boys heavily engaged in minor sport, I am just wondering if the government truly believes that $80 over the course of the year is going to have any impact on whether or not mom and dad put their son or daughter into a sports program. That is the one that befuddles me. We encourage them to lead healthy lives, to participate and to get out and interact, but is $80 going to make a difference? Should we not be putting that money, working with the other levels of government, into building better facilities and investing in our coaches and leaders, into those types of initiatives?

I have a specific question that I would like to ask the member. During the last election, the Conservatives very much ballyhooed their 1% of the health budget going toward sport and fitness. There is no mention of that in the budget. Where is the 1% of the health budget going toward sport and fitness?

[Steven Dwight Kavanagh, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in this House today to recognize the passing of a great citizen. Steven Dwight Kavanagh of Glace Bay was a well-known academic, community leader and military man.

Serving as the Dean of the School of Business at Cape Breton University, Steve was a mentor to both students and staff. He was honoured in 1999 with the President's Award in recognition of his personal actions and leadership inspiring others to common effort. His long and distinguished military career as a reserve army officer saw him rise to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and Commander of the 2nd Battalion of the Nova Scotia Highlanders. He served with distinction for three lieutenant governors of Nova Scotia.

Steve's commitment to his community was exemplary. He was a founding member of the Sydney Airport Authority, chair of the Sydney Ports Authority and a respected member of the Chamber of Commerce.

He will be remembered for his compassion, generosity and leadership, and his love for both family and community.

His wife Afra, his son Dan, and his daughters Basma and Sana should take comfort in knowing that Steve not only made a contribution to his community but he made a great difference.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as this debate unfolds today, I want to make a comment on what has come across from the government benches. Government members have referred to the past 13 years in a number of interventions today. I guess what it boils down to is that a responsible government is one that does what is necessary to improve the lot of the citizens it serves.

When the Liberal government took over in 1993, we had a reality. The reality was that we were spending $48 billion more each year than we brought in and we were adding to a total accrued debt. Over the past 13 years, the last eight, we have supplied surplus budgets. We have balanced the books and provided surplus budgets.

I think back 13 years and I remember unemployment rates of 12.5%. I know statistics released this week show that the jobless rate is at a 32-year low. I know that did not happen over the last couple of months. I know that happened over 13 years of work, but we did what was necessary.

What I see in this throne speech is that this government is not identifying what is necessary, and that is the prosperity agenda.

I have a question for the hon. member. What in fact are we staring down the barrel of? What is at risk here in not shoring up and making that investment, so that we are able to grow and prosper as a nation?

[Transportation Amendment Act, November 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member indicated, the link between Cape Breton and Newfoundland is essential. There has been much in the news in recent months with regard to the ferry service.

We recognize, not just as Cape Bretoners but as maritimers and Canadians, that the link is essential. It is a continuation of the Trans-Canada Highway and is certainly a provision under the terms of Confederation for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I see a commitment by the government to ensure that this service is not only continued but enhanced. Deliberations have taken place over the last number of months and a study has been put forward. We recognize that this service could be further enhanced.

We look at such things as the drop trailer service that is utilized by so many of the truckers and those who bring goods on and off the island, which certainly is essential to the people of that area. We feel that if investment is made, we can improve and enhance that service.

Investments must be made and there is a commitment on the part of the government. Some of the recommendations that came out of the recent study looked at additional investment in terminal service, in docking service and wharfage. Those are all key to providing the top level of service that can be had, so that ferries can run on time, efficiently, and in a manner that is cost effective to all involved.

I will certainly continue to work on this file. My colleague, the member for Sydney—Victoria, has put a lot of work in on this file. My caucus colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador will continue to support this initiative. We know it is important that Marine Atlantic is healthy, efficient, effective, and provides the service that is much needed between Cape Breton and Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Transportation Amendment Act, November 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate today, especially when we look at some of the excitement and enthusiasm around the Hill today. I do not know if that has been directed at the anticipation of my colleague and the opposition critic's intervention on this legislation or more so for maybe something that will take place a little later on in the day.

The legislation before us is something that has been around in a previous Parliament. It is fairly similar to that one in a previous Parliament. The legislation has been refined. Consultations have been held with the various stakeholders and we believe it is stronger legislation.

The bill is an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act, the Railway Safety Act, to enact the VIA Rail Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. I believe it strikes some balance between the various transportation sector interests. When we talk about mergers and various aspects of the transportation industry, I believe it goes a long way to address many concerns from that sector.

In this era of rapid economic change, technological revolution and globalization, mergers and acquisitions can be considered a legitimate and necessary business strategy. Mergers allow corporations to gain efficiencies from economies of scale. Increased efficiency means more competitive businesses which in turn means a more vibrant economy.

Larger corporations can also mean a concentration of power and possibly reduced competition, but that is why we have merger provisions in the Competition Act. These provisions can stop a merger or restructure a merger to ensure there is no lessening of competition. However, there may be other reasons to stop a restructure merger, as we have seen in the case of banks and airlines.

The government believes mergers can be a viable business strategy, but each merger proposal must be assessed on its own merits. The Canada Transportation Act contains a merger review process for air carriers that came into force in July 2000. This process was established in response to Air Canada's acquisition of Canadian Airlines as part of a series of measures to foster competition in the airline industry while the industry experienced a radical restructuring. The government took these measures to ensure that consumers were protected from anti-competitive behaviour that could arise from a dominant carrier situation. The government now recognizes that we also need a merger review process for other major transportation services.

In 1999 the Canadian National Railway and the Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railway proposed to combine their businesses. CN and BNSF are two of the largest railways on the continent. In the United States, a moratorium was put on all railway mergers following the receipt of the merger proposal as it was felt that if the merger were permitted under current rules, more mergers would follow until only one or two transcontinental railways were left. After a year long review of the relevance of the existing merger rules, the U.S. released new rules that set higher standards for the approval of any large railway mergers.

At that time we heard from many interested parties in Canada that wanted to express their concerns regarding the proposed business combination. Under the applicable process at the time, these Canadian interests had to go to the U.S. authorities to get information and express their concerns as there was no public process available to them in Canada.

It is clear that Canadians should have access to a Canadian process to review significant transactions and these transactions should include any component of the transportation sector, not just air carriers. This process should apply to the review of both domestic and transnational mergers.

The Canada Transportation Act review panel heard from stakeholders all across the country and noted that the scope of the review process under the Competition Act is limited to competition issues and provides no opportunity to consider broad, national or public interest issues.

The panel noted the growing pressure toward integration in the North American rail industry and as a result its recommendations included a proposal that a transportation specific review process be established to review the national and public interest issues that may arise from merger proposals.

Given the clear need for a process for other transportation services, Bill C-44 would ensure that a merger review process similar to the one applicable to air carriers is available for all transportation undertakings under federal jurisdiction. The bill would introduce a formal and transparent transportation merger review process that builds on the existing processes and experience gained from the airline merger review process.

The government proposes that competition issues continue to be addressed by the Commissioner of Competition. The Minister of Transport will have the power to appoint a person or the Canadian Transportation Agency to review public interest issues that may arise from the proposed merger transaction. These issues can range from the integrity of the transportation network to service to small communities.

As we all know, the pace of business can be very rapid. Lengthy reviews can mean lost opportunities. The bill sets a predictable timeframe and process that should not unduly harm the normal course of business. The Minister of Transport must decide within 42 days whether there are public interest issues that may need to be addressed. Should a review process be initiated, it must be completed within 150 days.

However, we recognize there are always exceptions. While the government is proposing that reviews be completed within 150 days, the Minister of Transport will be given discretion to extend this timeframe if needed. We also know that businesses need to have a predictable framework. The government will provide for the minister to issue guidelines on the merger review process including setting out general public interest issues that would need to be addressed by the parties to the proposed merger.

This would allow the parties to consider these issues and determine whether a merger could continue to be pursued. Should the parties decide to continue, the merger proposal would include an assessment by the parties of the public interest issues and possible remedies.

A strong, efficient and vibrant transportation sector is vital to Canada's economic success. The transportation industry is not only important to the everyday lives of Canadians, it is an important contributor to the economic growth in job creation of this country. Because of the importance of this sector to the economy and society, the policy framework must support its potential for growth and provide the flexibility for the sector to adapt to increasing pressures from globalization.

However, the transportation sector is characterized by a small number of dominant carriers in the air and rail modes. In North America, mergers and acquisitions have been normal business practices in these modes to consolidate operations, reduce surplus capacity, and to improve cost efficiency and profitability.

The review provisions in the bill will help to ensure that we continue to have a healthy transportation sector operating in a competitive global environment, yet responsive to the needs of Canadian shippers and Canadian travellers.