Maurizio Bevilacqua

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I had the occasion to consult with my constituents after the Speech from the Throne was delivered and they had some questions for the hon. member.

On the issue of child care, the residents of Vaughan want to know what happened to the 125,000 new child care spaces the Conservative government promised Canadian families.

The second question is on the issue of health care. While the residents of Vaughan worked diligently to build a hospital in our community, the Speech from the Throne is silent on health care. Why the indifference to such an important issue?

The third question is on the issue of cities. Cities like the city of Vaughan are the engines of the Canadian economy. They attract people, investments and capital from all over the world which creates and expands opportunities for Canadians. Why has the Conservative government chosen to ignore our cities and communities?

The fourth question is on the issue of Afghanistan. Canada's involvement in Afghanistan must remain true to its original purpose and intent. We remain committed to the Afghan people and the reconstruction of their society. We will hold the government accountable if it fails to deliver on that noble goal for, if it does fail, it will be failing our troops and the Canadian and Afghan populations.

The final question is on the issue of the environment, on which the hon. member spoke at length. Climate change is an ecological crisis that threatens the world. It is a global issue that requires a global response. Nations that embrace the environment will lead the global economy of the 21st century. Why has the Conservative government rejected the Kyoto protocol?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on an excellent speech. I really do hope that members on the government side took note of his speech. I know the former defence minister has, because all of us in the House could learn quite a bit from the hon. member's speech. He brought to light some serious omissions in the Speech from the Throne, omissions that deal with culture, the very essence of the fabric that is Canada, the definition of its heart and soul.

I want to ask my hon. colleague if he could expand on the repercussions of such omissions to Canadian society.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his speech. Of course, we will not agree on some issues related to the economic plan of the government, particularly its lack of a proper level of investment as it relates to human resources development.

The minister did touch upon an issue which is extremely important and that is Canada's population. As the minister knows, we are going to see a decline in the ratio of workers to seniors from five to one to three to one. The minister would understand the implications that would have in Canada's economic capacity to be productive.

What is the long term view of the government as it relates to the issue of immigration? I happen to think that we have not maximized the human resources potential of individual Canadians who can build bridges to other countries. Would the minister favour increasing immigration levels in this country as well as increasing immigration settlement funding?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Don Valley East for an excellent speech.

I want to point out that when we consider we have an aging population, where in a few years the ratio between workers and seniors will drop from five to one to three to one, how can the Speech from the Throne be silent on the very important issue of immigration? Immigrants represents the greatest hope to fill labour shortages in the country.

Finally, is the reaction to the Speech from the Throne shared by the residents of Don Valley East? In my area the residents of Vaughan are asking how a nation improves its standard of living and quality of life by reducing investment in people, workers, seniors, students, children and families, and how does a G-7 nation improve its quality of life by cutting in areas like research and development, education and the environment?

The citizens of Vaughan have rejected the Conservative vision of the country. Has the hon. member found the same thing in her riding?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I must say I am not surprised that the minister would think the Speech from the Throne is indeed excellent, but I think the reality is quite different, especially if we are in a family looking for a child care space or if one is a student looking for student debt relief or an individual who cares about cities. There are many deficiencies.

I think the government missed a wonderful opportunity to paint the future for Canadians. A successful Speech from the Throne is one that paints a future where people see themselves. I do not think many Canadians see themselves in this Speech from the Throne.

Cities do not see themselves in this speech. Gord Steeves, the president of the Canadian Federation of Canadian Municipalities states, “Clearly, the budget surpluses of recent years demonstrate that the government has the resources to provide tax relief to Canadians and invest in our cities and communities”.

That, of course, was the Liberal legacy.

Mr. Steeves states:

We are disappointed that the Government has chosen to forgo this opportunity.

None of these municipal priorities and strategies were fully addressed in today's Speech from the Throne. This will not only hinder the success of our cities and communities in a competitive world; it will impede the realization of the Government's overall objectives because the future of our country is tied to that of our cities and communities.

That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the Speech from the Throne.

I also want to state very clearly that this speech is very much a reflection of the retail politics approach of the Conservative government. I say this because there are major issues in the medium term, the short term and the long term, issues such as Canada's aging society. Where is that? What is the government's plan to address that particular issue?

Where is the government's plan to address the issue of emerging markets like China and India?

[School Speaking Tour, June 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the students, staff, parents and teachers who participated in my school speaking tour. Over the years, I have had the opportunity to listen to and speak with over 80,000 students and have benefited greatly from their input.

During this year's tour, the message from the students to the Prime Minister was crystal clear. They want the government to step up its efforts in a number of key areas, by making investments and designing a comprehensive plan of action to address the challenges we face as a country, including our environment, foreign aid, homelessness, immigration, health care, education, poverty, taxation, crime, research and development, community safety, infrastructure, drug abuse, gun violence, animal cruelty, aboriginals, seniors and Canada's place in the world.

The students of the city of Vaughan acknowledge that they live in a city with an exceptional quality of life and standard of living. Their gift is their ability to have a national view of our country and a global view of the world.

I am very impressed by their knowledge and willingness to accept responsibility and seize opportunities to make our country and our world a better place in which to live.

[Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, May 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take up the challenge raised by the secretary of state. I think she is right when she says that we need to talk about the issues related to giving Canada a more investment-friendly image. As the member for Mississauga South correctly pointed out, it is important that the fundamentals be put in place so that Canada can be viewed as a great place to invest.

If I may draw a little on the history of how we came to be the country that we are this year, I remember early on when we, the Liberal government, had inherited a $42 billion deficit and a skyrocketing national debt. We also had a tax system that was burdening the business community as well as individuals.

We had to turn all that around. We were very fortunate that we were very disciplined. We gave a strong signal to the IMF and the Wall Street Journal that in fact we were going to roll up our sleeves and bring about the type of positive change that the Canadian economy required. This is the connection between foreign investment and giving our country a friendly image abroad.

The point I am raising is that on interest deductibility and income trusts, there is not the type of signal that we want to send to foreign investors. It is not the type of signal that people are going to applaud. That is my concern with the manner in which the government is acting.

[Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, May 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I was really struck by something that the hon. member said in reference to reinforcing Canada's image abroad and making indeed Canada an investment friendly country and giving a positive image to the world.

As a member of a government that inherited a $42 billion deficit that we had to eliminate; that provided Canadians with the largest tax cut in Canadian history of $100 billion, both personal as well as corporate; and that made investments in R and D and innovation, it really gave an image to the world that in fact Canada was no longer a country threatened by the IMF knocking on its doorstep but was rather a country that was able to have great economic growth through the wise investments that were made.

While I of course support the principle of the bill, I do want to express, after conversations with individuals particularly in the business community, a concern I have about recent measures taken by the government. It relates to, for example, the tax on income trusts. How does that bring greater confidence to the investment markets, not to mention the issue of interest deductibility?

While this measure that we are talking about today is indeed a positive measure, I must say that we as a country and the Conservative government need to be aware of the fact that these types of measures will not give confidence to foreigners to look at Canada as a friendly investment place.

There has to be greater consistency. I am just wondering whether or not the hon. member shares the concern that I have on income trusts, the billions of dollars that seniors lost as well as the issue of interest deductibility that really hinders Canadian companies to further expand in a world that is truly globalized.

[Foreign Affairs, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the April 14, 2007 W-FIVE thorough investigation of the Ianiero case revealed major discrepancies between the claims of Bello Melchor Rodriguez, the attorney general for the state of Quintana Roo, and the police report.

I would like to know whether the Minister of Foreign Affairs believes that the Mexican judicial authorities are acting in good faith. If not, what will he do to ensure that Canadians are protected and that justice will prevail?

[Canadian Institutes of Health Research, March 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the 2006 budget left the research community in Canada disappointed. The 2007 budget built onto that disappointment.

Allocated to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research were $34 million in 2006 and $37 million in 2007, a far cry from the $175 million that had been committed by our Liberal government in economic fiscal update 2005.

The Conservative government's lack of attention to the CIHR has shown a lack of interest unprecedented in a generation.

The investment made by Canadians in research through the CIHR has led to remarkable progress in defining the molecular processes that lead to Alzheimer's disease, in rediscovering an inexpensive drug that shrinks cancerous tumours, and in developing treatments that reduce the personal and financial burdens of diseases such as diabetes, AIDS and arthritis.

A failure to invest in research jeopardizes the well-being and prosperity of all Canadians. The Conservative government's last two budgets have put in peril the national research strategy that took two generations to build.