Rodger Cuzner

[Main Estimates, 2005-06, June 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join in this debate this evening.

The opposition motion really is central to the operation of the government. Many of the speakers here this evening have talked about the budget and the importance of some of the significant investments that are being made through this budget. If people are watching this at home their eyes may be glazing over as we look at the numbers being bandied about, in the billions of dollars, and the various program investments that have been made.

What I would like to do is speak to how these investments make their way to the provinces and the impacts they are having on the provinces, on communities and on individual Canadians. It is important and it is significant. That is what it comes down to: being a better country and investing in a great country. I think our strength is in our communities.

I will speak on behalf of the Atlantic Liberal caucus. There are many advances in the budget. There are so many positive aspects in this budget that will pay benefits and dividends to the people in Atlantic Canada. I want to identify a couple of them first.

There is one that certainly everybody in the House is very attuned to and aware of. It is probably one of the sexiest aspects when we look at Atlantic Canada. The one that got the play nationally was the offshore accord. That money is ready to be delivered to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the province of Nova Scotia. It is a significant amount of money. It was a promise that was made by the Prime Minister during the last election and it is being delivered on. There was a long and protracted series of negotiations. Through equalization and then through the accord, this is one of the most complex federal-provincial deals that the federal government has.

The parties at hand, both provincial governments and the federal government, stuck to it and hammered out a deal. The Prime Minister went beyond the commitment he made. He went beyond the 100% offshore royalties and even provided for an upfront cash payment to each of the provinces. It is very significant.

For my own province of Nova Scotia, there will be $830 million in upfront money. It has already been identified by the premier that this money will be applied to our provincial debt. I commend him for this

Currently Nova Scotians carry the highest per capita debt in this country. I think this was part of the rationale and driving force behind the Prime Minister's election commitment to make sure that is dealt with, because the people in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are handcuffed with this particular debt.

That $830 million will be applied to the debt. In turn, that will loosen up between $40 million and $50 million annually for the province of Nova Scotia, which it can now invest in highways, education and various programs such as sport and recreation. This money will make it into the communities of Nova Scotia and will be of benefit to the people of the Atlantic region.

There will be $1.17 billion in the new equalization deal, which will provide for $151 million going into the province of Nova Scotia alone.

The money from the gas tax revenue has been debated and there have been questions asked in the House. There will be $145 million going to the people of the province of Nova Scotia. This will make its way into the regional municipalities, into the Cape Breton regional municipality and towns such as Mulgrave and Port Hawkesbury, into those municipal units that very much need the dollars.

From an Atlantic perspective, federal involvement in various aspects of the fishery is very important. I sit on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Many of the challenges that we have faced, many of recommendations that have come forward from that committee, and many of the issues that we have dealt with in recent years have found their way into this budget. They have been addressed by having funding opportunities through the budget.

Let us look at a number of them. There is the Coast Guard, for example, and the brave men and women who serve the country in the Coast Guard. We have seen $276 million allocated to the Coast Guard over the next five years, with $117 million of that finding its way to the Atlantic provinces.

We will see investment in six new large vessels, two for offshore research and four for midshore patrol and protection and enforcement. That is a significant investment in our Coast Guard. We have heard time and time again that our Coast Guard is underfunded and that it needs the tools to get the job done. It needs the tools for protection and it needs the tools to support science. This commitment of money in the budget certainly goes a long way toward addressing that.

There is another benefit we will find in this as well: an investment in our shipbuilding. We will see activity. Some state of the art technology that is being advanced by our country's shipbuilding companies will benefit from this investment.

Another aspect of fisheries and oceans that is being funded is the oceans action plan. Sometimes it is taken for granted, but industries that rely on the ocean generate $22 billion annually for the Canadian economy. That is fairly significant.

We are concerned about the loss of marine habitat. We are concerned about the deterioration in stocks. We see $28 million over two years being pulled out in this budget, with $14 million allocated to the Atlantic provinces to implement phase one of the oceans action plan.

On overfishing, I recall that a number of months ago we had an emergency debate here in the House on overfishing. This minister and this government are committed to addressing overfishing. When we look at our responsibilities through NAFO and that whole regulatory area, we see that we have made an investment of $15 million on an ongoing basis to address the concern on overfishing.

The Atlantic salmon endowment fund is one that is close to me personally because the Margaree River is in my area and is part of my constituency. The Margaree River is really the whole focal point and the essence of the tourism industry throughout the Margaree Valley. The unfortunate part is that if there are no fish in the rivers there are no heads in the beds and we have no tourism industry.

The impact of acid rain on our environment and the fish habitat has taken its toll over the years. The budget includes $30 million for a one-time peel-out for Atlantic salmon to make sure that those stocks are healthy and sustainable for years to come.

Just to put it in terms we all understand, when we look at a commercially caught salmon we are looking at a benefit of about $3.50 a pound. For a salmon that is caught recreationally, it is about $35 a pound. That is because sportsmen come in from the United States and from all over Europe. They come and stay for weeks at Margaree and they fish salmon. It is important that we work with communities and special interest groups that continue to promote the health of Atlantic salmon stocks.

I want to make a point on regional economic development. Let us look at the opposition party and its position on regional economic development. I do not think it has one. I think this is something that party fears.

I want to tell the House that this party stands behind regional economic development. This party sees targeted investments, working with our business communities. Economic development does pay dividends. There is a great need in Halifax, Moncton and St. John's. Those economies are chugging right along. Those economies are doing so well for themselves.

Let me tell members something. If we are in rural Atlantic Canada and have a great idea with a great business plan and we take that plan to the bank, the bank is not very excited about supporting those initiatives. If the plant is in Mississauga or Hamilton and that business does not work out, the bank would not lose any of its investment, but it is a risk in rural Canada. The Conservatives across the way should know that it is the same in rural Canada everywhere.

Guaranteed loans are something we continue to support through ACOA and the investments in ACOA. This is an important budget with great investments through this budget. I encourage everyone in the House to support the budget.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, through his speech, I would think that my hon. colleague would probably agree with me that through the whole budget process here, the actions of the official opposition could at best be termed bizarre.

First there was the rare show of wisdom on the part of the leader of the official opposition. Upon the budget being delivered, with the ink barely dry on the budget, he stood and offered his support for the budget. He saw nothing in the budget that would bring this country to an election. I thought it was a rare show of wisdom.

Then, of course, there was first reading of the budget when the entire official opposition decided to phone in sick. When it was the turn of those members to stand and vote in the House of Commons, where were they? They were sitting on their hands. They did not want to engage in this. They decided to opt out of the job that Canadians have sent us to do here in the House of Commons.

Then, of course, came the bump in the polls. The official opposition experienced a little bit of a spike. I know it is a young party, but in those members' post-pubescent glee they thought that Canadians were overwhelmingly driven and wanting an election. I think that has been replaced by the “what the hell were we thinking” phase. I nearly forgot about the “I am going to hold my breath until I turn blue” phase, when they did not show up in committee. They would not do their parliamentary duties. They tied this place up for a week. We were sent to Ottawa to do this duty, but they opted out on that one.

Here is my question for my colleague. Looking at the situation that the members from Newfoundland and Labrador find themselves in and the call from Danny Williams to stand to support this budget, does he think this is yet another ploy to mask the true intentions of the official opposition?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke about several investments in the budget such as the investment in the military and about the huge impact the military had in the province of Nova Scotia, more particular, in the Shearwater, Dartmouth, Halifax area. We have a disproportionate number of military people serving in Nova Scotia, but that activity is really an economic generator, an economic engine.

The new investment in budget 2005 will be significant for quality of life issues and for equipping our men and women in the armed forces. It also will generate additional economic activity through fisheries and oceans, things that we have fought for and have represented to the minister and to the department on behalf of the fisheries and oceans committee and as individual members.

The budget is riddled with these types of initiatives such as changes to the Employment Insurance Act. I come from an area that is very much coastal. It is not that our workers are seasonal, but our industries are seasonal. People who work in those industries often find themselves in a challenging position come the end of a particular season. There are $350 million in changes to the Employment Insurance Act. Those are all important aspects of the budget for which we really hope to garner support. We want to get it through committee, get it back in the House and get it passed.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as my respected colleague identified, this is important to the people in Atlantic Canada, in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia.

The accord would provide $800 million to the province of Nova Scotia. I might add that this would be an upfront payment, once the budget is passed.

This was an example of how our Prime Minister went over and beyond. His intent was to honour the 100% offshore royalties in both provinces. In fact, he negotiated that there would be an upfront payment. It is wise and I recommend that the premier of the province of Nova Scotia takes that upfront payment and applies it to the debt. Nova Scotia carries one of the greatest per capita debts in the country. If he applies it to the debt, that will result in increased activity of about $50 million in transportation, in roads and highways, in education, in all aspects of administration through the province of Nova Scotia. We see that as imperative.

I am still perplexed, as a member from Atlantic Canada, about why we do not have the members from Newfoundland and Labrador supporting the budget. Back in March the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl said in the House to the members of the Liberal government that we could never turn our backs on our province on an important issue like this, even if it meant that our party said tough stuff and we would sit in the last row or the last seat. He encouraged us to make the tough decisions. They have the opportunity now to make that decision to support the budget. Let us make sure we get it through committee, back in the House and passed.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asks specifically about the programs for seniors. Our seniors are Canadian citizens as well. There are some great programs in the budge for seniors.

All Canadians understand the importance of a balanced approach to handling the fiscal business of our country. They understand the importance of paying down the debt and the benefit that this will show their children, their children's children and future generations.

Canadians understand that it is imperative we invest in the environment. The budget has been referred to as probably the most green budget that has come before the Commons.

Core values such as investment in health care and education are values shared by all Canadians. Seniors stand behind them and they see the merit in them.

People had mentioned about their week back in the constituency. This is something I heard time and time again. First, my constituents were happy they were not going to the polls. Second, they want us to get on with the budget. It is a good budget, not only for Atlantic Canada, not only for Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, but for all Canadians.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I have a great deal of respect for the member for Halifax and her approach in looking at the budget in its entirety, looking at the accord and the amendments that have been made and really seeing the tremendous benefit not just for Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia but for all Atlantic Canada. In her presentation she viewed the budget through an Atlantic lens, which makes sense. Even outside the accord, I see so many benefits in the budget for the people in Atlantic Canada. In my province of Nova Scotia there is a tremendous amount of support for various initiatives.

As the finance minister pointed out in his 2005 budget speech, Canada stands out among the G-7 as having the best job creation record, the fastest growing standard of living, and low and stable inflation and interest rates. This did not happen by accident. Since eliminating the deficit in 1997 the Government of Canada has taken a balanced approach to reducing debt, reducing taxes and investing in social and economic priorities.

With the Government of Canada's seven consecutive surplus budgets, the federal debt has been reduced by more than $61 billion. Budgets are projected to remain balanced or better in 2004-05 and in each of the next five fiscal years. As a result we remain on track to achieve our goal of reducing the federal debt to GDP ratio to 25% by the year 2014-15. Canada's much improved fiscal situation has allowed the government to make significant investments in our country's future.

Before I get into the social aspects which I think are important for the Government of Canada to invest in, I want to speak specifically about some of the initiatives that have come out of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, one of the committees I sit on in the House of Commons. Many of the initiatives that were in the budget grew from recommendations and initiatives that came forward from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. There is the investment in the Oceans Act. Moneys are allocated in the budget to curb overfishing. There is money in the budget as well to reinvest in our Coast Guard.

There will be fleet replenishment for the Coast Guard. New vessels will be acquired through moneys that have been allotted in the budget. Combined with initiatives that are being put forward by the Minister of Industry, that will yield the opportunity for Canadian companies to be competitive and to engage in bidding on and building some of the new ships here in our own Canadian shipyards. Certainly we will support that.

The Atlantic salmon endowment fund is another initiative that has been pushed by the fisheries committee for some time and a number of members who have active salmon communities. In Cape Breton along the Margaree Valley it is imperative that the stock in the Margaree River is in good shape and that there are fish in the river. That is what drives the tourism industry in that area of the island.

Through investments in habitat, stock replenishment, enforcement and conservation and in partnering with a variety of community groups, such as the Atlantic Salmon Association and the Margaree Salmon Association, we could get a great deal of mileage out of investments like that. The money that has been peeled out in the budget will go a long way. From the $30 million identified in the budget, we will leverage three times that. We will be able to grow the moneys that are being put toward the salmon endowment fund.

The NDP amendment made additions in a variety of areas, one being affordable housing. Affordable housing is a concern in my riding as it is in most members' ridings in Atlantic Canada. We look at the allocation of funds for seniors housing and RRAP grants. That is key. People want to stay in their own homes and want an opportunity to reinvest in their homes. This will go a long way in aiding people in staying in their own homes.

Access to education is very key. The cost of education in Nova Scotia is high. Tuition fees for a medical student at McGill University in Quebec are around $1,400 annually. To attend the medical school at Dalhousie, that same medical student would be looking at tuition fees of $14,000. There is a considerable difference. Outside of the accord, the money for post-secondary education in the budget will go a long way in helping post-secondary students within my province.

I will now focus my remarks on initiatives in the budget that build on our social foundations, part of what defines us as Canadians. I want to speak about persons with disabilities. One of the areas of the budget that I am most proud of is the recognition by the government that a fair tax system recognizes the special circumstances of certain taxpayers and helps remove barriers from participation in the economy and society as a whole. I am speaking of the tax system for our fellow Canadians with disabilities.

Over the last several years the Government of Canada has introduced a number of tax measures to help persons with disabilities and caregivers who often provide vital care for persons with disabilities and loved ones who are elderly or ill. Building on those measures, budget 2005 takes significant new steps. Specifically, it provides persons with disabilities and caregivers with ongoing additional tax relief representing $120 million in 2005-06 and growing over time.

Hon. members will recall that in budget 2003 the government established the technical advisory committee on tax measures for persons with disabilities to advise the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue on how to address tax issues affecting persons with disabilities. The technical advisory committee on tax measures for persons with disabilities was given an 18 month mandate to provide advice to the federal ministers of finance and revenue. It was composed of members of organizations representing persons with disabilities, medical practitioners and private sector tax experts. The committee's final report, which was submitted in December 2004, contained 25 recommendations. The government is acting on the committee's report.

Budget 2005 also adds physiotherapists to the list of health professionals who can certify eligibility for the disability tax credit. It expands the list of expenses eligible for the disability support deduction to include costs such as job coaches, deaf and blind interveners and Braille note takers.

Budget 2005 also delivers much needed help to low and modest income families caring for children with disabilities. Based on the technical advisory committee report, the budget proposes to increase the child disability benefit to $2,000, up from $1,680, as of July 2005.

The government often cites huge numbers in the House, but the people back in the ridings want to know how they relate to their personal circumstances. I will be attending the upcoming annual general meeting of the Richmond County Disabled Association. It will be those people who will be able to speak to and give some terms of reference to this item.

In practical terms a family with one child with a severe disability and an income of $30,000 in 1999 would have obtained tax relief of about $720 under the disability tax credit. In 2005 that same family will receive more than $3,500 in support and tax relief, a fivefold increase. This includes $1,600 through the disability tax credit and supplement for children, plus $2,000 through the child disability benefit which was introduced in budget 2003. These initiatives build on past measures and illustrate the government's commitment to provide real assistance to Canadians with disabilities.

There is often the perception that our seniors population is forgotten in the rush of modern life. I would like to speak just for a moment about seniors. I have a great number of seniors in my constituency. We deal with a great number of seniors issues. Canada's support for seniors is one of the major success stories of government policy in the postwar era. At the same time, it is an area facing new challenges because of the rapidly growing aged population.

This demographic shift is not unique to Canada. The United States and several other developed nations are faced with the social and economic challenges of rapidly aging societies. This shift has serious implications and poses a serious challenge for Canada's economy because the aging of a nation's population can directly reduce the economic and living standards. This reality is especially relevant in Canada where the population is expected to age faster than those in other comparable nations. Simply put, as the percentage of our population above the age of 65 continues to grow, our health care system and other social services will have to deal with increasing pressure to meet demands of older Canadians.

Budget 2005 confirms $41.3 billion in new funding for health care over the next 10 years. It also makes significant investments across a wide range of policies that matter to seniors, from income security programs to retirement savings, assistance for people with disabilities and for caregivers, and support for voluntary sector activities by and in support of seniors.

There are a number of key measures in budget 2005 that are focused on our senior population. I would like to identify a few.

The budget proposes to increase the maximum monthly guaranteed income supplement benefit by $36 a month for singles and $58 a month for couples. It also proposes to expand funding for the new horizons for seniors program by an additional $5 million in 2005-06, $10 million in 2006-07, and raising to $15 million in 2007-08 and subsequent years, bringing the annual budget to $25 million. These increases will help meet a range of identified needs within the seniors community.

Finally, budget 2005 also proposes to set aside a further $13 million over five years for a national seniors secretariat which would be established within Social Development Canada to serve as a focal point for collaborative efforts to address the new challenges facing seniors.

I trust my remarks today have illustrated that the Government of Canada accords with the highest regard the social values embraced by the electorate. There is more to this budget than just numbers. Budget 2005 puts forward a number of social measures I am pleased to stand behind. I am proud to be a member of this government, a government that cares.

This is a good budget as it is, not only for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia but for all Canadians.

[The Environment, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on May 2 the Government of Canada announced that a full panel review would be undertaken to assess the cleanup of the Sydney tar ponds. The Minister of the Environment assured the community at that time that a stringent timeline would be followed and there would be no delay in this process.

As the first critical timeline benchmark approaches, does the Minister of the Environment remain committed to the June 2006 deadline for receiving the review panel's report?

[The Environment, May 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in May of last year the Government of Canada in collaboration with the province of Nova Scotia allocated $400 million for the remediation of the Sydney tar ponds. In the past year a project description has been developed and presented by the province. Today in Sydney it was announced that a full panel review would take place to assess the cleanup process.

My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Will today's announcement in Sydney make certain that the people of Cape Breton will finally see this project proceed in a safe and expedient manner?

[Civil Marriage Act, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to join in this debate. A lot of members in the House say in their preambles that it is a pleasure to join in the debate, but I do so sincerely because as the member for Cape Breton--Canso I stand here understanding how the people of my constituency feel on this particular issue. I stand today to represent their views.

I think it would be insightful to look at the constituency I represent. For the most part, my constituency is rural. The towns of Glace Bay and Port Hawkesbury stand as the largest urban centres, but the greater population comes from the smaller communities, many of them coastal communities. Many people in my area work in the fishery as harvesters and processors. They farm. They work the forests. A fair number work in manufacturing. I am confident that the people I represent are honest, good, hard-working Canadians who believe in family and in their community.

As a candidate prior to being elected to the 37th Parliament in November 2000, I made the commitment to my constituents that before voting on any change to the traditional definition of marriage I would consult with the community and I would allow their opinion to weigh heavily on my position.

Upon being elected, I was determined to honour that commitment. In the fall of 2003, I undertook an extensive communications strategy with constituents so as to determine their thoughts and their views on this particular issue. A communication piece was delivered to every household in my riding, outlining what I believe was a very balanced presentation. The piece addressed both the pros and cons of the essence of the issue. A survey was included that sought opinions on same sex benefits, on civil unions, on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and of course on same sex marriage.

The results were very revealing. Over 82% of the respondents voiced their strong opposition to any change in the traditional definition of marriage.

I met with various groups, with clergy, college students, sexual diversity support groups and community leaders, and I hosted town hall meetings. I also received an overwhelming number of unsolicited representations. I recall being at numerous community events. I remember walking through the mall with my children. I remember being in arenas throughout the constituency. People were very forthcoming and forthright in coming to me to offer their opinions.

To put into context just how mobilized my constituents became on this issue, I can think back to another very significant event that Canadians experienced in recent years. While our previous Prime Minister worked to stake out our country's position on the American initiative into Iraq, I remember vividly how Canadians were seized by the potential of Canada going to war. I remember the great number of interventions I received on that particular topic.

Even the response to our position on Iraq pales in comparison to how engaged my constituents became on the issue of same sex marriage and changing the traditional definition of marriage. What I heard loud and clear from my constituents was that although traditional marriage is not perfect it remains the single best relationship in which men relate to women, in which women relate to men and in which children relate to parents.

When entering into marriage, a couple joins in an institution which is based on four pillars: first, each is of a certain age; second, they are not family; third, marriage is only between two people; and fourth, marriage is between one man and one woman. To compromise any of these principles, do we not compromise the institution?

I want the House to know, unequivocally, and I want it stated on the record that there is absolutely no desire on the part of the people I represent to deny the rights of any individual. They truly believe in equal rights and benefits of all central institutions to same sex couples. What they do believe is that marriage is an historic religious union and that altering this institution would be a great disservice to Canadian families. Marriage predates states, governments and charters and it has served us well over time.

What I also heard from many people was their genuine concern about any tampering with the institution of marriage. Many believed that the government bill was well-intentioned, however they saw it more like a social experiment, one which has not been embraced in other parts of the world which might have considered it. Their sense was that the government was moving too fast to alter this age old institution without the benefit of research or study. They questioned whether the change in this definition would truly provide the intended outcome, that being an attitudinal change on the part of some citizens.

Being armed with the confidence that I understood the concerns that were being articulated by my constituents, my position on the issue was even more solidified in November 2003.

During his acceptance speech at a national leadership convention, our new Prime Minister stated just what he would expect from his caucus MPs. He said that what we needed to be successful as a truly national federal party would be members who represented the interests of their constituents to Ottawa, not represent Ottawa's interests to their constituents. Had there been any doubt in my mind or any reservation in my conviction, there was no longer.

I fully appreciate the reality of today's family living in an ever-changing global world. Many families are forced to do far more with much less. The race to keep up is driven by greater needs and greater expectations. The pressure this pace puts on society and brings to our communities is sometimes daunting.

One positive outcome from these stresses is that we are seeing an increased interest by families to exercise traditional values. We see families returning to their spiritual roots, witnessed by increased numbers in many churches across the country. We see Canadians reaching out to draw strength from their traditional institutions.

The concerns that I have heard from my constituents are shared by a vast majority of Canadians, that there is a belief that we should treat all Canadians equally but not necessarily exactly the same. That is why, when called, I will be voting against Bill C-38.

[Child Care, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of speculation in the media and in coffee shops across this country that Canadians will soon be forced to the polls. This would obviously jeopardize current legislation before the House.

Could the Minister of Social Development tell Canadians what the state of early learning and child care would be if the budget implementation bill did not pass?