Lost his last election, in 2006, with 35% of the vote.
Public Safety Act, 2002 February 11th, 2004
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-7, an act to amend certain acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the special order made earlier, I wish to inform the House that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-17 at the time of prorogation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Government Online Services April 8th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the recent Accenture report recognized Canada as a global leader in e-government.
Over the past year consultations have been held across the country to discuss the future of e-government with stakeholders.
Given our progress to date, there is broad agreement that we have an opportunity to help establish competitive advantages in the knowledge economy and strengthen our democracy. Sure, there are challenges going forward; there is a need to develop new models of accountability; how to treat information as a public resource; and encouraging political leadership.
Could the President of the Treasury Board tell the House what the government intends to do to meet these challenges and ensure that Canada continues to be a world leader in e-government?
Committees of the House March 20th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.
Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act February 25th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting in favour of the motion.
The Budget February 25th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, certainly we have to be very cognizant, and I am sure the hon. member is, of the fact that the $100 billion five year tax cut program is still unravelling. If the member is asking whether we should continue to maintain oversight of our tax policy and ensure that we continue to maintain its competitiveness, I agree 100%. I am speaking now as the member of Parliament for Stoney Creek. I certainly do not think the tax file is closed, if that is the question. I think we have made great gains in terms of what we have done in unfolding and announcing that tax package, but I certainly think that if we are going to be competitive globally we also need to look at various areas of tax reform and different types of taxation rather than the structure we have in place today.
With respect to the United States, this is also not a race to the bottom. We also need to have a vision for the country as to what our values are, what types of values that we want to ensure are funded effectively by governments, and what values people support. It is not just about taxation. Taxation is a very important element in the overall competitiveness of the economy, but we can have the lowest taxes in all the G-7 and if we do not have the skilled people, the research infrastructure and the general infrastructure to move product to market, we will be lacking in our ability to grow as an economy. Taxation is very important, but it is certainly not the only issue for me.
In terms of the comment about suggested spending, I think we also have to acknowledge that while the spending that has been announced is quite high, by some measures, and some people have characterized it as quite high, we have to look as well at where the spending actually has occurred. The majority of it is in health care, which reflects what Canadians have been asking for. Also, the spending is in the context of the fiscal framework and the fiscal framework continues to ensure that we have balanced budgets. We still have contingency. We will have prudence built in. We are not in any way, through this budget, jeopardizing the fiscal framework that has been laid out. To me, that is a critically important point.
There is also the aspect of reallocation and the ongoing so-called cyclical program review, which is also a very important point for me in this budget. It is to ensure that the programs are constantly monitored to ensure that the funds allocated to them are actually providing the kinds of outcomes that we had intended them to provide, and if they are not, then let us deal with the reallocation.
The Budget February 25th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Etobicoke North.
This morning as I sat here I heard many members talk about the various aspects of the budget, such as EI, health care and infrastructure. I would like to focus a bit on what the budget actually does to make Canada competitive in North America and globally and to ensure that Canada remains a strong voice in the world.
The Minister of Finance talked about the concept of turning Canada into a northern tiger, a magnet for global investment attracting the best in human capital. On the latter point I just want to make the comment that the best in human capital means that we need to continue to invest in our people. We need to invest in our human capital.
It also means that as a national government we need to pay attention to local organizations like the Industry-Education Council from my area, which for some time now has been promoting a trading model to assist our manufacturing sector and to ensure that Canada remains strong and vibrant in the area of skills and skills training. I think that as a national government we need to be very much aware of what some of the local areas are doing to put forward local solutions that can form a template, a model, for national solutions.
I think it is also important to mention this morning that the Canadian economy, as everyone knows, does not function in isolation. It is part of a continental economic base. The budget does paint a picture of a remarkably strong economy given the situation around the world. We have read about the job creation numbers in 2002, at 560,000 with the majority being full time. That is in contrast to what the U.S. economy has experienced recently. The unemployment rate in Canada is now about the same as the U.S. rate for the first time in 20 years. Interest rates remain at 40 year lows and we have had 3 years of current account surplus. It is a very positive picture of our particular circumstance.
It is also important to note that our net foreign debt as a percentage of GDP is falling, for the first time below that of the United States, and our Canadian economy is expanding quite well with a solid 3.3% in 2002, considerably faster than the 2.4% recorded by the United States. That is certainly faster than all other G-7 and G-8 countries, so I think we continue to move along quite well in terms of our economy.
However, the continuing uneven recovery in the United States certainly is a concern for a lot of our manufacturing sector and I think it should be a concern. We did see stabilizing late in 2001 in the U.S. equity markets but it again declined sharply in summer 2002 in the wake of Enron and other accounting and corporate scandals. It is worrisome, I think, and the point I want to make is that it is worrisome because of our level of economic integration.
We have taken some steps and that is the reason we have done as well as we have. Some of these steps have been very key in continuing to move our economy along. We have our existing tax reduction plan, which lowers the general rate of corporate tax from 28% to 21% in 2004. Again, with these cuts, the average federal-provincial corporate tax rate in Canada is below the average U.S. rate for the moment, although there now is a package in front of the president to deal with the U.S. tax situation. As for capital gains, again we are lower than the typical top tax rate in the United States.
We have also taken what I and many members in the House consider a welcome step in phasing out the capital tax, although I would suggest that some would like to see this move along more quickly than has been proposed in the budget. Phasing this out is a good step. I think it is also important to mention that this reduction and the gap created are unaffected by the recent tax changes proposed by the U.S., so this will remain an advantage for us, but I also think it is important to state that we cannot really stop there. If we are to become the true northern tiger, we need to maintain and expand this advantage.
Economic prosperity is certainly not just about taxation. It is about a lot of other things and I think this budget speaks to a lot of the other areas that we need to invest in to continue to move our economy along.
I want to take a few moments to speak about ensuring that we take a proactive and a mature approach to securing the long term Canada-U.S. trade flows that our economy is so dependent on. Certainly the importance of the border cannot be underestimated. This budget reaffirms support for the implementation of the Canada-U.S. 30 point smart border action plan. The plan enhances the security of the border and will facilitate the legitimate flow of people and goods, but I still believe that we can do more with respect to this issue.
I think that the Nexus fast lane program at our land borders needs to be expanded to air travellers. I know there are pilot projects, but we need to go beyond the pilots. The FAST program for commercial shipments, with its acronym meaning free and secure trade, was implemented in December 2002 and we need to look at it to ensure that it remains smooth. We also need to look at expanding the program beyond the six highest volume border crossings.
In fact, we need to place appropriate security measures without damaging our economic security, so it is really an approach to the relationship that we need to accept and adopt as parliamentarians and as a government. I look to a comment made by Carleton professor Michael Hart in a recent publication. When he talks about the differences in objectives, approach and rationale of a wide range of Canadian and American laws and regulations relating to both security and economic well-being, he puts the differences in these terms: very minor and, in most instances, unimportant.
If we want to ensure that our trade flows remain free flowing and that our economy continues to prosper as we continue to export to the United States, we should be focusing on a lot of these objectives and the approach and the rationale of a lot of the areas that deal with our economic and security issues. We should recognize that the differences are minor and we can deal with them. I am not suggesting that we harmonize our differences with the United States, but I am suggesting that we should aggressively pursue mutual recognition agreements that would simplify our border commerce while maintaining our democratic control. We need to ensure we do that to maintain our sovereignty. That is an issue a lot of people talk about when this comes up. We already have some mutual agreements in place. We have them for refugees and we have them for criminal justice. There are many we could look to as models.
The budget also commits $11 million over the next couple of years to bolster Canada's representation and trade promotion activities in the United States. That is a good step. We have to be cognizant of the fact that our other NAFTA partner, Mexico, has 43 offices in 19 states in contrast to the 13 offices that Canada has, including the embassy in Washington. We need to ensure that our profile and our presence in the United States are well resourced and well funded and I think the $11 million does move us in that direction.
On the broader discussion about Canada-U.S. relations, I talk about it as an underpinning to our budget and as an underpinning to our economic prosperity. We have policy choices in large measure because of the kind of export market we have with the Americans, with 87% of our exports going to the United States of America. I suggest that we continue with a step by step pragmatic approach. We need to expand on our successes. We need to expand on our smart border approach. We need to deal with mutual recognition agreements. Perhaps we need to consider the “tested once” approach in North America between Canada and the United States for a multitude of products. That would really allow the continued flow of goods. We also need to work toward increasing the free flow of persons across the border.
In closing, let me say that we need to engage in this debate. We need to understand that we have been successful in our economy because of our access to the United States in a North American market. We are a trading nation and we need to continue to trade. We need to ensure that we have access to that market so that we can continue to develop many other markets around the world.
The Environment February 11th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the members of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy's brownfields task force on the release of its long awaited strategy for Canada.
Brownfields are abandoned, idle or underused industrial and commercial lands that are so contaminated that redevelopment is unlikely.
We know that municipalities are already doing their part. In Hamilton, for example, the city has made progress on implementing its brownfield strategy, but more must be done.
Canada's cash starved municipalities need help from Ottawa. I urge the federal government to implement the report's recommendations and do its part to unlock the potential of these sites.
Redevelopment of brownfield sites creates jobs and an expanded tax base and improves quality of life. It is about leveraging public and private funds to energize our cities. Our G-7 partners are turning their plans into action. We know what the federal role can be, so let us get on with the job.
Trade December 10th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious trade is the lifeblood of the Canadian economy. Recently, senior U.S. officials, including trade representative Zoellick and commerce secretary Evans, made the bold proposal that all WTO countries eliminate tariffs on manufactured goods no later than 2015.
My question is for the Minister for International Trade. What is the Canadian response to this proposal given the integrated nature of the two economies and what is the strategy of the Canadian government to work closely with the United States in these ongoing international trade negotiations?
Kyoto Protocol December 3rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I am the chair of the parliamentary steel caucus and I take that quite seriously. We have worked effectively with all members in the House. By 2012 the steel sector would find itself about 12% below 1990 levels so the Kyoto accord itself would not impact the steel sector specifically.
However there is concern with the customers that the steel sector supplies. The steel sector is very integrated in North American markets so there are some concerns there. The steel sector is quite content at this moment but we need to move a little farther with the sector by sector approach, the covenant approach. It has been effective in making progress with respect to the negotiations.
When we talk about the provinces it is important to remember that of the 12 concerns that the provinces had, nine have been dealt with and accepted. Three are being debated. It is not an issue of not engaging the provinces. I want to restate that it is important to ensure that provinces are onside.
I am focused on the implementation strategy and that is what the House should focus on. Parliament, through a special committee, should scrutinize that implementation strategy so that all provinces, consumers, labour and business are onside.
Kyoto Protocol December 3rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, that is a valid question. In terms of the implementation plan, I want to focus on the large emitters. Certainly negotiation has gone on. More needs to be done.
In my remarks I made reference to the sectoral approach and signing covenants on a sector by sector basis. We need to push a little harder and eliminate the caps.
There is a 55 megatonne cap on the large emitters at the moment. I would much rather see us engage in a negotiation with large emitters without that target there and see how we could improve efficiency, see what the impact would be on the investment climate because the investment climate is very important. I do not want to prejudge this negotiation with large emitters by suggesting that there is a 55 megatonne cap. We may go beyond the 55 megatonne cap with good economic principles and good economic objectives in place.
The large emitters I have talked to are very heartened that a sectoral approach is now being taken. The issue of a cap is still a problem to some extent for some large emitters but pursuing on that basis could create the climate for investment certainty for those sectors.
At the end of the day, I think everyone in the House wants to pursue an economy that continues to create wealth and prosperity for Canadians in the context of a North American economy because that is the economy we work in. The objectives are not mutually exclusive. I believe that we can succeed in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, whether it is CO
2
, methane, or the other types of greenhouse gas emissions that were targeted under the Kyoto protocol. We can do it while ensuring that we have economic prosperity.
The question is, what economic incentives will we have in place to deal with, mitigate and provide offsets for any downturn that may occur as a result of the plan? Pursuing sectoral agreements will allow us to move forward. If the large emitters are on side, we can collectively work together. I do not want to pursue any type of accord or any type of national policy that ultimately tears this country apart. We cannot operate in that fashion. It is certainly not the way members in the House want to operate.