House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 28% of the vote.
Inter-parliamentary Delegations March 2nd, 2009
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian parliamentary delegation for the Canadian section of the Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas respecting its participation in the regional workshop of Central and South American parliamentarians, “Liberalizing Trade: The WTO, the Doha Round and Development Challenges”, held in San José, Costa Rica, on November 7 and 8, 2008.
Madam Speaker, it saddens that my hon. colleague and his government refuse to ever speak about the very important key cornerstone of international doctrine, the responsibility to protect doctrine, which is something Canada had played a major role in.
Canada worked hard from the beginning of the 20th century to assume control of its external affairs. In the years following Canada carved itself an image that has endured in the eyes of people across the world. This image has been one of good and caring members of the international community, committed to the rights and dignity of citizens all over the world. It has been our creed long before the responsibility to protect.
This image of honourable purpose has enshrined itself in Canadian values and in our national identity. It was Thomas Jefferson who once said that care of human life and not their destruction was the first and only object of good government.
This applies as much abroad as it does at home. Canadians do not turn their backs to the atrocities that are committed in countries around the world. We have always acted to protect human rights, and we absolutely must regain this position of leadership that is our heritage and our obligation.
Madam Speaker, historically, Canada's reputation of action in the area of human rights has been exemplary. When confronted with brutality and violence by regimes or warring parties brought upon innocent victims, Canada has always spoken out loudly and forcefully in defence of those not in a position to defend themselves. Canadians are proud of the legacy of Lester B. Pearson and his historic and transformational role in promoting and facilitating peacekeeping among nations.
Around the world the blue beret is a proud symbol of Canada's role on the international stage. Canadians have occupied an integral role in crafting the responsibility to protect doctrine and the subsequent change to the concept of peacemaking. The so-called three Ds that have marked Canadian foreign affairs--diplomacy, defence and development--are an approach that has earned the respect of the world. Indeed, new U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has expressed her commitment to these principles as the new guiding standards of United States foreign policy.
With such realities in mind, it is distressing to see that in the face of recent international crises in places like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka, the government has neglected Canada's traditional role as a leader in human rights. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, a long, drawn-out war officially ended years ago, yet at least 40 women are raped daily, 45,000 Congolese are killed monthly and 250,000 have been displaced since the end of August. This is not a situation that is improving on its own and the status quo is clearly unacceptable by any reasonable standard.
The Democratic Republic of Congo is not alone in its experience of the government's indifference. Where is Canada's voice and commitment in regard to the situation in Zimbabwe? Zimbabwe's people continue to endure suffering associated with political and civil strife. They have an inflation rate that is over 200%, making even the most basic commodities beyond the reach of ordinary citizens. There is ongoing discrimination, food shortages and a cholera epidemic, and up to 1.3 million Zimbabweans are suffering from AIDS.
In spite of this desperate human suffering, Zimbabwe's autocratic president has restricted humanitarian assistance from non-governmental organizations. The responsibility to protect doctrine makes clear that those nations committed to the convention have a right, not to mention a duty, to intervene on behalf of people where governments cannot provide assistance, or the government is acting deliberately in a harmful manner. Deliberate acts of oppression in Zimbabwe have led to a complete depreciation of political and economic capital that would allow action on the part of the government. This is a disaster of truly epic proportions.
Sadly, we are witnesses to similar atrocities in Sri Lanka. Vigils have been held all over our country for family members in Sri Lanka who have been caught in the crossfire. As those who meet to call attention to the situation in Sri Lanka light candles of remembrance, the flames serve to remind the government that its own leadership has diminished Canada's role from a guiding light to no more than a burning ember.
Close to a quarter of a million people are trapped in northeastern Sri Lanka and there is no end in sight to the violence there. What action has the government taken to signal its leadership in this crisis? The need to act is clear and Canada must live the principles it helped enshrine in the responsibility to protect doctrine. I am not altogether sure that our government understands the gravity of allowing situations like these to continue without ensuring that our voice is heard.
Simply put, will the minister answer whether or not his government will resolve here and now to return Canada to its place of leadership in the international community?
Business of Supply February 26th, 2009
Madam Speaker, I am pleased that my hon. friend and colleague, the minister is co-operating with the provinces and municipalities across the country, particularly in my home province of Ontario and specifically in my city of Toronto.
Over and over again the mayor has raised the issue of access to the building Canada fund and the need to cut red tape. I appreciate the minister's comments, but I also saw this in the last recession, in the 1990s. Many people, specifically in the construction industry, who were out of jobs really should not have been because there were projects that were left hanging and were not being implemented.
Again, I want to have the minister's assurance. Will the minister do everything in his power to make sure these projects go out the door so that people who are losing their jobs, especially in the construction sector, can in fact get work?
Automotive Industry February 25th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, 2009 is already turning out to be a record and none of them good.
January saw the biggest decline in sales in over 15 years, two-thirds of this in the auto sector, and 100,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost.
In communities across Ontario, auto parts suppliers are closing their doors for good and jobs are being lost.
The new U.S. administration has taken decisive action but the government refuses to act. When will the government speak up for our Canadian workers, show leadership and act now?
Business of Supply February 24th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I am quite honoured to participate in this debate on the motion that has been brought forward by my colleagues from the Bloc.
In their motion before the House, they denounce the government for two recent actions that were included in the budget. One is the establishment of a national security commission. The other is the unilateral amendment of the equalization formula. Both issues are important, but I must say that they are incorrectly phrased by my colleagues from the Bloc. I think it is important that we take the time in the House to debate this issue and look over some of these items.
First of all, I am not personally opposed to the establishment of a national securities regulator. However, it has to be done in a constitutionally sound manner. Therefore, as my leader has stated, the government should make reference to the Supreme Court prior to proceeding with this plan. I think that is the only fair way and the only way to know that we are acting within the law as well as with the authorization and support of the Supreme Court.
As a party, we remain committed to exploring the national system of securities regulators in cooperation with the provinces and in accordance with the Constitution to enhance coordination and regulation, while maintaining the ability to address unique regional needs. If the United States, our largest trading partner, had a common securities commission and regulator for every state, one can only imagine that it would be very difficult. One of the things we have to realize in this global crisis that is taking place is the important need for us to cooperate and have agencies working together to cut through red tape. That is so important. I think even my colleagues from the Bloc would understand the importance of removing red tape. Red tape can be an obstacle to economic growth. We are living in a global village and times have changed.
It is important to know that securities legislation in Canada and around the world has two main objectives: to protect investors and ensure that capital markets are efficient, fair and transparent. Regulatory discrepancies among jurisdictions in terms of public disclosure and information sharing between companies and investors can create distorted markets and increase risk to investors, both of which are undesirable for economic stability and competitiveness.
Generally, securities regulators administer four broad areas. First, raising capital through sale of securities such as private placements and initial price offerings. Second, ensuring that companies are transparent and continuously disclose relevant investment information. Third, enforcing securities regulations and deterring misleading or deceitful behaviour; and fourth, ensuring traders of securities are qualified, reputable and licensed.
Some provinces have taken different views on this issue. We know that Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec currently oppose the idea of a single regulator, while my home province of Ontario and British Columbia are voicing their support. In October of 2007, the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously passed a motion for the federal government to abandon its Canada-wide securities commission project. It has been stated many times here in the House by my colleagues from the Bloc.
One argument presented by the provinces will be that securities regulation is clearly a provincial area of jurisdiction under the property and civil rights power of the Constitution subsection 92(13) and the federal government should not intrude. In today's regulatory environment, securities in Canada are subject to the rules and regulations of 13 different provincial and territorial regulators, creating a fragmented regulatory framework that serves to hamper investment in Canadian companies.
Some of the specific criticisms of the current fragmented approach include, for example, trying to raise capital. It is expensive to comply with all the provincial laws. Raising capital is time sensitive and compliance with all of the different rules hold up commencement of trading.
Investors in smaller provinces can be denied investment opportunities. Because of the small and fragmented nature of current securities regulation, enforcement is difficult and not adequately funded.
In support of the current multi-jurisdictional model, provinces argue: it allows for the development of more innovative ideas that can adapt and respond better to unique regional markets; it can more efficiently enforce regulation as they acquire experience and expertise in their regional markets; a single securities regulator may impose compliance rules tailored for larger multinational users and may squeeze out smaller regional companies from accessing capital; and it protects regional securities infrastructure that provinces have developed with accountants, lawyers, underwriters and other professionals.
These are some of the issues that have been raised both for and against by the different provincial jurisdictions. These arguments are valid on both sides.
At the same time, I would go back to my earlier argument, and that is, given the financial uncertainty happening around the world and the crisis also taking place, this would be a unique time to go forward with this initiative provided that it does have constitutional support.
We should look as well to see if we can move forward in co-operation with the provinces. It is important that we have the provinces on our side in dealing with this issue. The government talks at great length about its co-operation with the provinces, but it has the backs up of many provinces that feel they are not being treated fairly.
To address the criticisms, all the provinces and territories, with the exception of Ontario, have created the Canadian Securities Administrators, a forum for securities regulators to coordinate and harmonize Canada's regulatory system. The CSA, as it is called, has successfully implemented several initiatives, including a passport system for a single window of access and recognition to participate in all of the regional capital markets.
On March 17, 2008, the passport securities system moved to its next step and any prospectus approved in one jurisdiction will be recognized in all others save for Ontario. The CSA has also implemented a harmonized Internet SEDAR system for information disclosure and a streamlined national registration system for traders.
In 2006 the Crawford panel, a panel commissioned by the Ontario government to look at securities regulation, recommended adoption of a single securities regulator.
In 2003 the Liberal government set up the wise persons' committee to adopt a single regulator to address the issues of regulatory barriers, fees and enforcement. This was supported at the time by the Canadian Bankers Association and the Investment Dealers Association of Canada. The wise persons' committee recommended a national system based in Ottawa with strong, functionally empowered regional offices in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal and Halifax.
In 2004 the Liberal government agreed with the CWP conclusion that the best possible securities regulatory structure was a single securities regulator and pledged that it would work with provincial and territorial governments to move this forward.
That is the historical background of what has taken place over time on this issue.
The Conservative government and, in particular, the Minister of Finance consistently stated their intent to implement a national securities regulator in budget 2006. Then the government in March 2007 published “Creating a Canadian Advantage in Global Capital Markets”, which included the creation of this expert panel. This commitment was reiterated in the 2008 budget.
At the request of the Minister of Finance, the International Monetary Fund, in 2008, completed a report calling on Canada to move forward with a single securities regulator. The Minister of Finance appointed a panel of experts to look at the possible creation of a common securities regulator in Canada, headed by Tom Hockin, a former federal Conservative minister of state for finance and a former president of the Investment Funds Institute of Canada.
These are some of the issues that have been addressed both for those who are in favour and who are against a common regulator.
On the second motion by the Bloc Québécois on the issue of equalization, the Minister of Finance, in announcing budget 2007, infamously stated “the long, tiring, unproductive era of bickering between the provincial and federal governments is over”. That was a very short-lived statement, as we all know. It certainly was never realized, except for the very brief second when the minister uttered those words.
In that budget, the Minister of Finance introduced amendments to the equalization formula, amendments the Conservatives believed would fix equalization for good.
Among other things, budget 2007 introduced a return to the measurement standard reflecting the fiscal capacity of all 10 provinces, a new approach to the treatment of natural resource revenues through a 50% exclusion of those revenues from the calculation of equalization payments and, finally, a fiscal capacity cap to ensure that equalization payments did not unfairly bring a receiving province's overall fiscal capacity to a level higher than that of any non-receiving provinces—
CANADA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS ACT February 6th, 2009
Madam Speaker, I quite enjoyed the remarks of the hon. member, especially her reference to the arts communities and issues affecting gays and lesbians in her city of Halifax, which I think would be no different than many cities across the country, like the city of Toronto.
I know the arts community plays a valuable role, especially in the non-profit area, and we want to ensure that this legislation does not burden these wonderful community groups, which are doing great work for us.
Does she share those views?
CANADA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS ACT February 6th, 2009
Madam Speaker, I am sure my colleague would agree that we are quite fortunate to have in our caucus people who have been involved with many organizations throughout their lifetime.
He spoke to the importance of immigrant settlement, which I think is quite fundamental as well. Our esteemed colleague from Beaches--East York is one of the founders of COSTI, which does an incredible amount of good work across the GTA in dealing with immigrant settlement. This exemplary work is something we should be congratulating as well. We need to ensure that when legislation such as this comes into law it does not burden those organizations but that it helps them. We need to be supportive of them just as they have been supportive of so many communities and so many people in need.
CANADA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS ACT February 6th, 2009
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on his fine remarks. He outlined quite well some of the issues of concern with Bill C-4, An Act respecting not-for-profit corporations and certain other corporations.
All of us have not-for-profit organizations within our own ridings. In my riding of Davenport there are excellent organizations such as the Working Women Community Centre, the Abrigo Centre and the Working Skills Centre. These not-for-profit agencies deal mainly with immigrants and refugees, and help the vulnerable and those in need in our city. I congratulate them on all their fine work. I am sure the hon. member has many organizations in his own riding that he can also comment upon and thank.
Not-for-profit organizations are essential in our communities. They are the ones that deliver the real services. They are doing a tremendous amount of work for very low pay. They have difficulty raising money and it is not always easy to get funding from different levels of government, but they are doing incredible work. Certainly cities like Toronto would not be liveable and we would not have a country like we do have at the moment if it were not for these agencies.We have to do everything possible to help them out.
I share the comments of my colleague about whether this legislation is going to add to the burden of the not-for-profit agencies, whether it is going to add more red tape in terms of not streamlining the processes.
Maybe my hon. colleague could comment further on his concerns, which I share and are valid, about not burdening the not-for-profit organizations because they are doing tremendous work for Canada.
Petitions February 6th, 2009
Madam Speaker, I join with thousands of petitioners who have signed the war resisters support campaign. Canada has a moral duty to support all those brave soldiers who oppose the war.
This past Wednesday, U.S. war resister, Cliff Cornell, surrendered himself to U.S. border police after being ordered to leave Canada. He was promptly arrested. He is the second Iraq war resister to be held in Whatcom county jail. He follows Robin Long who was deported in July.
The House and the courts have already spoken in favour of allowing them to stay. The petitioners want to know why the Conservative government will not abide by the proud Canadian tradition and allow them to stay?