Mike Wallace

[Committees of the House, April 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague from the Bloc, with whom I have spent many hours sitting through the ethics committee meetings on, as the report calls it, “The Mulroney-Schreiber Affair—Our case for a full public inquiry”.

I must take some exception to the Bloc member's view of how things are going. Out of respect for Mr. Johnston, he was asked to do a job, in terms of coming up with some preliminary concepts. He did that. Then he was asked to come up with a set of recommendations, in terms of what the inquiry's scope would be. He is a fully qualified, independent commentator on this issue.

If the Prime Minister had done it without an independent individual, and I have not heard from any side of the House, from any party, that Mr. Johnston was not qualified, the opposition would have said, “Look at the bias. The Prime Minister is trying to hide something”, because that is kind of approach it likes to take about the integrity of the Prime Minister.

First, there was a call for an inquiry from all parties, and that is what he committed to. To be clear and to be fair to not only everybody in this House but to all Canadians, he asked an independent adviser to work on the terms of reference. That is exactly what he did.

The Bloc's approach tonight is an attempt to bring some sort of cloak-and-dagger attitude toward the issue. That is totally opposite. It is completely transparent. The member may not like what the special adviser has submitted, but that is what happened.

At committee, the Bloc member was very keen on getting a report to the House so that Mr. Johnston could get started on his activity and get back to the Prime Minister so we could get started on it. That is what happened. Then tonight I heard her complaining that we did not have enough time to finish, that our recommendations were not included in what he looked at, that he had it out the next day.

Is she not satisfied that the inquiry is going to begin and that there are a set of recommendations from an independent adviser that this Parliament and Canadians trust?

[Liberal Party of Canada, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader once asked, “Do you think it's easy to make priorities?”

It seems that these days the Liberal Party is certainly having trouble doing so. We hear one thing from the leader, another from the deputy leader and other things from the Liberal leader wannabes.

Let us take this recent example from last Friday at Concordia University, where the Liberal Party deputy leader gave a speech in which he discussed the idea of being a global citizen. He said:

I don't think you can be a good global citizen if you're not a good national citizen. The chief problem in the world is that not all people live in strong and capable states.

According to the deputy leader, creating a strong, capable state is a new and more important goal than solving global warming, ending poverty or fixing the north-south divide. He believes Canada's priority should be to assist in strengthening states rather than simply provide aid to poor countries.

Does his Liberal leader agree with these comments? Is this a new Liberal priority? Who is speaking for the Liberal Party? The Liberal Party does not know, Canadians do not know--

[Business of Supply, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue and I will be standing in favour of the special committee proposed in a motion that was passed by this House previously on our role in Afghanistan. As the Prime Minister said, it was a Canadian motion, not a Conservative motion, a Liberal motion or any other party's motion. It was one for all Canadians in the very important role we are playing in Afghanistan.

I appreciated the member's comments. I do not agree with many of them, but that is fair. That is part of why we are in debate, but I want to correct the member's comments particularly on transparency and accountability of this government.

This government has had over 16 technical briefings in the two years that we have been government. Under the Liberals there was one. We have had two votes in this House of Commons, one with 30 hours of debate. We did not have any under the Liberal government. Our ministers of defence have been at committee, with over 17 appearances, and have been accountable and transparent on what we are doing. My understanding is that this may have happened once or twice with the previous government.

My point, and I will be happy to hear the comments back from the hon. member from the Bloc, is that this government is taking transparency and accountability very seriously, not on just this issue but on all issues. In particular, on this issue since the member brought it up. We have been much more transparent and much more accountable than the previous government. We think it is important to Canadians.

In my newsletters to my constituents I have put in an article about Afghanistan at least three times of the six “Upfronts” that I have sent out. It is very important to us. We are doing the job and I would appreciate any comments that the member may have on the work that this government is doing to make sure that Canadians are informed of what we are doing in Afghanistan.

[Income Tax Act, April 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to talk about Bill C-207.

Canada's Conservative government takes seriously the challenges of ensuring that Canada is equipped to succeed in an increasingly competitive world. Our vision for success includes all regions of this great country. This vision is set out in our “Advantage Canada” economic plan and has been acted on in real terms.

“Advantage Canada” sets out a blueprint for the best educated, most skilled and most flexible workforce in the world, and it does so on the understanding that all of our young people need to be given the opportunity to acquire the skills and training they need to give Canada the knowledge advantage it needs to succeed.

When Canada succeeds, we all succeed. That is why Canada's Conservative government brought forward its vision in “Advantage Canada” and that is why we are acting on that plan in real terms, delivering real results for Canadians.

Our plan is about achieving a higher standard of living and a better quality of life for Canadians as the world economy continues to transform. It is about helping people reach their full potential and ensuring that they have the incentives, opportunities and choices they need to achieve a better quality of life.

This government understands that high taxes limit Canadians' opportunities and choices and hinder economic growth. With a more focused government, we can lower taxes to create incentives for all Canadians to succeed, regardless of where they live and work.

An essential element of our “Advantage Canada” plan to secure Canada's economic future involves attaining one of the most competitive business tax regimes in the world. The Government of Canada has made enormous strides in this regard.

With the $60 billion in tax cuts announced in our fall economic statement, including another one percentage point reduction in the GST, the total actions taken by this government to date are approaching $200 billion in tax cuts over this and the next five years. This will bring federal taxes to their lowest level in nearly half a century. The federal tax burden measured by the total federal revenues as a share of the economy will fall to 15.1% by 2011-12, the lowest ratio in nearly 50 years.

Key to our objectives for a strong business environment is the reduction of the federal corporate income tax rate from 22% to 15% by 2012. This will make Canada's corporate income tax rate the lowest among the world's major developed economies. This will give Canada a substantial tax advantage over the United States, with a statutory tax rate advantage of over 12 percentage points and an overall tax rate on new business investment advantage of more than 9 percentage points by 2012.

Along with a reduction in corporate income tax, we also have eliminated the corporate surtax for all corporations. This not only reduced the corporate tax rate by 1.12 percentage points in 2008, but also simplified the tax system.

We eliminated the federal capital tax two years ahead of schedule.

We provided an incentive to encourage provinces to eliminate their capital taxes.

We reduced the small business tax rate to 11% from 12% beginning in 2008.

We increased the small business limit to $400,000 from $300,000.

This competitive tax regime will be a powerful brand for Canada globally and will leverage economic growth and the creation of employment opportunities for all Canadians, regardless of which region of Canada they choose to live and work in.

Bill C-207 proposes to use a tax credit to encourage young people to stay in a particular region. Yet, unlike “Advantage Canada”, it would not help to create the types of employment opportunities that would provide an incentive for a young person to stay.

The bill ignores the very nature of Canada's economy. Economic adjustment is an ongoing reality of a healthy, dynamic, diversified economy.

The Government of Canada supports regional economic development and devotes significant resources to programs that are responsive to local needs, make strategic partnerships with other stakeholders, and are multi-faceted in their approach. Our government proposes a visionary plan to improve the standards of living and quality of life of Canadians and to make Canada a world leader for today and for future generations. Bill C-207 would do nothing like this. Instead it proposes to spend up to $600 million on a tax credit that does not help create a single additional job.

For these reasons, I am unable to support this private member's bill. I encourage hon. members to similarly reject it as the significant financial resources that it entails could be more effectively dedicated to meeting the priorities of Canadians.

With the time I have left, I want to go over some of the issues we had with the bill. As a member of the finance committee, I had the opportunity to discuss the private member's bill with the member who brought it forward and with some of the staff he had brought forward to help with those decisions.

There were four or five key points that were made during those meetings. As we can see, the bill has been changed considerably since being brought to committee. I will explain the reasons why we believe those changes are important.

For example, no particular professions or skill sets are targeted. The bill said that no matter what the job was, if people worked in the region, they could get the credit if they came from that region. If people were in a profession that was well represented in the area and there were no particular skills set that they brought to the table, the bill did not address that. The credit would effectively go to all post-secondary and university graduates.

The bill did not do what the member wanted it to do in terms of creating jobs in the home area from where the young people came. If the area is already saturated with that type of employment and has those opportunities, there is really no need for that tax credit. That money could be used to target, as we have done “Advantage Canada”, opportunities for people across the country and not in specific areas. Since regions with high economic growth are also likely to witness shortages of skilled workers, encouraging graduates to remain in economic depressed regions could aggravate these shortages.

That is exactly one of our points. I come from an area in Ontario that is doing well. There are areas in the country that are not doing well. However, I have always believed in the mobility of labour. I want young people from my region to be able to work in any region in Canada where they find satisfactory and challenging work. This has economic benefit not only to them, but to the country as well.

The bill does not encourage that. In fact, it does the opposite. That is another reason why, at committee and here in the House, I did not support the original bill brought forward by the Bloc member. The credit would provide tax relief only with respect to the first 52 weeks of qualified employment and would not necessarily provide long term solutions. This is the specific comment I made at committee. It is a very short term, short-sighted solution. Areas that need help do not need it for only 52 weeks. They do not need people who are just there to get a tax credit. They need a longer term vision.

I would hate to see young individuals, who make these moves to these areas to get these jobs, stay at home for 52 weeks for the tax advantage. I do not think it does anything for the economic development.

Those are just three of the things I spoke to at committee. There is a variety of others.

I will not support Bill C-207 when it comes to a vote in the House of Commons. I did not support it at committee. There are better ways to proceed, such as what the Conservative Government of Canada has done. We will proceed with “Advantage Canada”, making a difference for all Canadians in all regions of the country.

[Points of Order, April 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday, the member for Halton, during his question in question period, said:

--the member for Burlington has broken the rules with an illegal mailing that he expects taxpayers to pay for.

I have followed every single rule set out by this House of Commons. The member's statement was inaccurate.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask that the member for Halton have the integrity to apologize and withdraw his statement of yesterday.

[Product Safety, April 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are about good government for Canadians, where Liberals are only interested in what being a government can do for them.

It should come as no surprise that when the Liberals had the chance, they failed on all accounts to bolster and strengthen our product safety system in Canada. Thankfully, our government is taking action where the Liberals could not and would not.

Would the Minister of Health please update the House on how our government intends to strengthen Canadian confidence in the products that they use every day?

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of this government's $21 billion in tax cuts since 2006. I think the member makes our point. The federal finance minister told the finance minister of Ontario that other provinces were way ahead of Ontario in terms of their corporate tax rate. He told the finance minister that if he wanted to save manufacturing jobs in his province that he should look at the corporate tax rate. He asked him to at least stay on the same playing field as his other provincial counterparts who have taken the lead and have actually done something for their manufacturing sector. I think it was only appropriate and the right thing for our finance minister to point that out before that budget was presented.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that I do not recall them standing, complaining or commenting when every other provincial finance minister commented previous to our budgets the last number of years about what they would like to see from the federal budget. When it came to the lead up time for us developing what we wanted to see for this country, it seemed to be fine for the provincial finance ministers to be commenting.

In my view there is no reason that the federal finance minister cannot comment on what the provinces should be doing for this country and the provinces to have a more productive economy.

The facts are that a few days after the provincial budget came out we announced the community development trust, with $358 million to Ontario; the public transit capital trust fund, with $195 million to Ontario; and, of course, the police officer recruitment fund of $156 million.

We are working with Ontario and with every province to make this country a better place to live and to improve the quality--

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to share my time with the Minister of Finance.

Today's motion is a pretty transparent and desperate attempt by an increasingly irrelevant federal Liberal Party of Canada to involve itself in what has been, pushing aside all the expected partisan sniping, a largely substantive policy argument surrounding the question of how Canada and our provinces should react to global market volatility in order to stimulate and maintain economic growth.

Clearly there are two differing viewpoints on this substantive matter, and both are being publicly discussed and debated.

When we consider some of the more trivial matters occupying public discourse, to some degree a debate like this is quite refreshing. We should, and I will today, take this opportunity to build some substantive policy issues directly related to improving Canada's, indeed, Ontario's, economic prosperity, sales tax harmonization and the modernization of Canada's security regulatory framework.

Moreover, both of those issues are instances where cooperation between the federal and provincial government is essential to move them forward.

First, I will begin by examining the need for an improved security regulation in Canada and our government's efforts to facilitate this change. We have a strong financial services sector in Canada, a sector that has a presence throughout the country and it has increasingly become a source of new, high quality, high paying jobs for Canadians.

This is especially true and important for Ontario where, as a recent Statistics Canada survey has pointed out, these new jobs are offsetting job losses in other sectors like manufacturing. For instance, Toronto's financial service sector has seen strong annual employment growth of approximately 2.5% in recent years, a trend most would like to see continue.

In Burlington, for example, my home riding, financial services is one of the four key sectors. We have a number of organizations from banks to mutual fund companies with head offices and back offices in Burlington providing all types of financial services to Canadians. That sector, in Burlington alone, employs 4,000 Burlingtonians.

We have a capital markets regulatory system that can be improved. Canada is the only industrialized country without a common securities regulator. It relies on what most impartial observers would describe as a cumbersome and fragmented system of separate provincial and territorial regulators who lack the proper tools of enforcement.

Indeed, there are 13 securities regulators with 13 sets of laws, however harmonized under a passport system, with 13 sets of fees, a system that also lacks critical national coordination of enforcement activities.

The overwhelming majority of market participants, business and labour organizations, economists and academics, international bodies, and even a former Liberal finance minister have been clear and consistent. We must improve Canada's securities regulation framework. The following are their comments.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees says:

...Canadians have been embarrassed and frankly appalled that regulation and enforcement of securities crime in Canada is so weak....

The IMF says:

Canada is currently the only G-7 country without a common securities regulator, and Canada's investors deserve better.

The Financial Post, on August 2007, had a survey which said:

It's loud and clear that [business leaders] want [a single] securities regulator....

The Investment Industry Association of Canada said:

Virtually everyone now recognizes that the existing multiple-regulatory system is badly flawed and in need of repair.

A Montreal Gazette editorial reads:

...a single Canadian securities regulator...would be more efficient in preventing or prosecuting frauds...than today's 13 provincial and territorial financial watchdogs.

The Liberal member for Wascana, who briefly served as the federal finance minister, said:

...we need to substantially improve our [fractured regulatory] system in Canada.

...the issue is real. The issue is urgent.

The Bankers Association said:

The cost and regulatory burden of a business having to file in up to 13 jurisdictions is a disincentive for foreign investors.

Finally, a Toronto Star editorial states:

Canada needs a single...securities regulator...Corporate Canada knows it. Investors know it.

To address these concerns, our federal minister has strongly advocated the need for a common securities regulator, the benefits of which are widely recognized and acknowledged.

First, a common regulator would strengthen both regulatory and criminal enforcement by forcing accountability, improving allocation of resources and ensuring consistent sanctions and enforcement are priorities.

Second, it would cut the red tape and reduce costs for investors participating in the markets.

Third, by ensuring efficient markets it would promote investment and stimulate productivity, growth and jobs.

Fourth, it would give all provinces more influence than now exists, where Ontario is the de facto regulator of securities in Canada, regulating over 80% of all activity.

One might assume that Ontario's government would be in opposition to the common securities regulator. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ontario's Liberal government and the federal government have been strongly allied on this issue, even establishing the influential Crawford panel in 2005 that proposed a move to a common securities regulator nationally.

We are thankful that Ontario has been a strong advocate of this change. We are very appreciative of the strong support of members of the Liberal provincial government, such as Gerry Phillips, an Ontario provincial remember who has worked to convince other provinces of the benefits of a common securities regulator and who publicly expressed his support and said:

We believe it is the right thing for Canada to have a common body of securities law, a single fee structure and a common securities regulator.

In this instance, our two governments are both actively complementing each other in pursuit of a common objective. We hope that other provincial and territorial governments will join us.

To that end, we have recently established an expert panel to provide advice on how to best move forward on developing a model common securities act. The expert panel, chaired by former federal minister of state for finance and the former president of the Investment Funds Institute of Canada, the hon. Tom Hockin, will offer independent advice and recommendations to the ministers, both federally, provincially and in the territories on the most efficient and effective way to go forward.

Improved securities regulation will not only create an advantage in global capital markets, but a prosperous economy benefiting all provinces and territories.

I will briefly examine the merits of sales tax harmonization. As this House may recall, our government, as outlined in Advantage Canada, budget 2007, the fall 2007 economic statement and budget 2008, has detailed the benefits of harmonization. It has been well established that provincial retail sales taxes deter business investment and, as such, are an impediment to Canada's productivity and competitiveness. This is especially relevant in Ontario's struggling manufacturing sector.

As Perrin Beatty, president and chief executive of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, recently indicated:

The impact if...Ontario were to harmonize with the GST would be hundreds of millions of dollars of tax competitiveness in the province at a time when the manufacturing sector in particular is so badly squeezed. This would have been a major shot in the arm for the Canadian economy.

Ian Howcroft, of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters of Ontario, has also noted that a harmonized tax would help manufacturers immensely by harmonizing the provincial tax on business inputs, saving production costs and hours of paperwork stemming from filing taxes twice. He said:

It would alleviate a lot of the administrative challenges and the duplication of costs. It would be a great reliever of administrative and ultimately financial burdens for manufacturers.

This is little wonder as, I am sure the House will recall, the federal finance minister publicly suggested that Ontario should take steps toward harmonizing the province's retail sales taxes with the GST or, at the very least, transition the province's retail sales tax to value added tax.

I would hope that through my remarks I have shown that while our federal Conservative government may have significant policy differences with its provincial counterparts in Ontario on certain economic matters--

[Half-masting of Peace Tower Flag, March 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Motion No. 310 tonight.

I want to being by saying that my remarks will lead to my calling on the mover of the motion to send this to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in order to undertake a full study of the half-masting rules.

The committee could study the issues raised by this motion in the context of a full policy. It is better to complete a full study and then decide on what changes, if any, should be made.

Since 1966, the Government of Canada has had a policy governing the half-masting of flags. Revised in 2003, the Department of Canadian Heritage administers the half-masting policy for the Government of Canada. The policy outlines the circumstances under which the national flag of Canada is to be flown at half-mast.

The policy includes guidelines for half-masting that are mandatory in section I, discretionary in section II, and discretionary with the authority of the Prime Minister in section III.

Because the government speaks for Canada and Canadians, half-masting is inherently a government responsibility. All flags at federal buildings and establishments, including Parliament, fall within this responsibility.

Under section I, mandatory half-masting, six special days are observed to remember the contributions and sacrifices of brave Canadians. Among the other special days, section I, part II, called “Special Days” under the current policy, states:

The Flag will be Half-masted on all federal buildings and establishments in Canada, including the Peace Tower, from sunrise to sunset on the following days:

c) November 11, Remembrance Day, unless Half-masting occurs at the National War Memorial or a place where remembrance is being observed, then Half-masting can occur at 11:00 or according to the prescribed order of service, until sunset;--

In addition, the Flag will be Half-masted on the Peace Tower:

f) from sunrise to sunset on April 9, Vimy Ridge Day;--

Both Vimy Ridge Day and Remembrance Day allow us to remember the sacrifices of those who have served their country. The half-masting of the flag on these occasions is an age old signal of a country in mourning.

More than 1,500,000 Canadians have served their country since the first world war and continue to do so today. While considering the importance of the sacrifice of our Canadian Forces members around the world, what must not be forgotten is the importance and meaning of November 11, Remembrance Day.

For many of us, war is a phenomenon that is difficult, if not impossible, to comprehend. It is a phenomenon that may both tear a country apart and bring it together.

In fact, it was war, more specifically the battle of Vimy Ridge on April 9, 1917, that was a marking moment in the birth of our collective nationhood. The battle marked the first time that Canadian troops from all existing provinces worked together toward a common goal.

In the spring of 1917, the Canadian Corps were tasked with the decisive recapture of Vimy Ridge. For the first time in the Great War, all four Canadian divisions were to fight together on the same battlefield. After extensive planning and training, 30,000 Canadians, drawn from all nine provinces, attacked at dawn on the morning of Easter Monday, April 9, with rain, snow and sleet falling all around them.

With the benefit of a heavy artillery barrage, they took the ridge by afternoon. With tenacity and unflinching bravery, the Canadians fought on and three days later the entire ridge was under Allied control.

It was the most successful Allied advance on the Western Front to that date, but it had a terrible cost: 10,602 Canadians were wounded and 3,598 were killed.

This “turning point battle” resulted in four Victoria crosses being awarded and the cornerstone laid for Canada's image as a proud and confident nation, as well as its place in the world.

On July 3, 1921, during a speech given at Vimy Ridge, Prime Minister Arthur Meighen reflected on Canada's contribution to the Great War and said:

At this time, the proper occupation of the living is first to honour our heroic dead; next to repair the havoc, human and material, that surrounds us; and, lastly, to learn aright and apply with courage the lessons of the war.

That is exactly what we do on Remembrance Day. We remember those who sacrificed their lives during the first world war, the second world war and the Korean War and those who have served and died since, in Cyprus, Bosnia and Afghanistan, to name a few.

Until November 2005, the half-masting policy did not specify when to lower the flag to commemorate the death of military personnel. In the past, this has resulted in half-mastings that were based on the Prime Minister's discretionary powers, as laid out in section III of the current policy.

The Department of National Defence developed initial guidelines for half-masting in the event of military deaths. These National Defence internal guidelines function within the Government of Canada's broader policy on half-masting.

Section II, part 14, “Employees of the Federal Government”, states:

When an employee of a federal department, agency or Crown corporation dies in the line of duty or by reason of the position he or she occupies within that federal department, agency or Crown corporation, the Minister responsible for that organization may decide to Half-mast the Flag. Half-masting in such circumstances can only be carried out on those buildings and establishments affiliated to the organization. The Minister may decide on the geographical extent of the Half-masting and its duration.

The Department of National Defence's internal protocol on half-masting states:

In the event of the death of a member of the Canadian Forces who is deployed on operations to a special duty area, unless special instructions are received, flags will be half-masted as follows:

a. All flags within the task force to which a member is assigned at the time of death will be half-masted from the day of death until sunset the day of the funeral;

b. All flags at the home base/station of the member will be half-masted from the day of death until sunset the day of the funeral;

c. All flags within the environment (sea, land or air) to which the member was assigned will be half-masted from sunrise to sunset on the day of the funeral, and;

d. All flags at National Defence Headquarters and at the headquarters of the operational command to which a member is assigned at the time of death will be half-masted from the day of death until sunset the day of the funeral.

In accordance with the National Defence Protocol, the federal government will half-mast flags on appropriate buildings from time of death until sunset on the day of the funerals for all members of the forces killed on duty.

The members of our armed forces are not the only Canadians who put themselves in harm's way for the good of this country. The current policy allows the Government of Canada to recognize the ultimate sacrifice made by all public servants.

Motion No. 310, however, is extremely narrow in its focus and calls for the flag on the Peace Tower to be lowered only for:

...Canadian Forces and other Canadian government personnel who are killed while serving in overseas peacekeeping, peacemaking or humanitarian missions,....”

Being so narrow, the motion fails to recognize Canadian Forces and other Canadian government personnel who make the ultimate sacrifice serving here in Canada. I think of disasters like the flooding in Quebec, the ice storms of 1998 and the Red River flood in 1997. If a soldier were to be killed while serving his or her country at home during disasters like these, their sacrifices would not receive equal recognition under this motion.

The Government of Canada values the dedication and pride of our service people at home and abroad.

The death of any Canadian in the line of duty is truly a tragedy. The rules of half-masting the national flag of Canada allow the government and, indeed, all Canadians to mourn such a loss collectively.

I want to call again on the Standing Committee for Canadian Heritage to undertake a full study of the half-masting rules. In committee, we could study the issues raised by this motion, and other ideas brought by member, in the context of a fuller policy review. It is better to complete a full study and then decide on what changes, if any, should be made.

We have a fantastic opportunity for an in-depth study on this very important policy at committee. I hope the hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo and all hon. members of this House will consider this option.