Mike Wallace

[Business of Supply, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I do consult the business community in my riding of Burlington and a number of others.

As chair of the marine caucus and chair of the Conservative Party and the all party group from the steel caucus, on numerous occasions those organizations have told me that the security system under which this country is regulated is inefficient and ineffective and it is a barrier to them.

I have spoken to companies that do business across the country, including in Quebec, and they have clearly told me that we should be working in this direction. That is why I am not supporting the motion that is before us, but supporting the action our government is taking in terms of trying to find a solution to the securities regulatory system in this country.

[Business of Supply, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the hon. member from the Bloc. I sit on the finance committee with him and he does an honourable job there.

However, I cannot understand why the hon. member is penalizing the business community in Quebec through this motion. The businesses and companies in my riding want to grow and expand but they are facing tremendous costs in the marketplace today. I just do not understand why the Bloc would bring forward a motion that would add costs to the business community, additional regulatory barriers to their future growth and development not only in Quebec, but all of Canada.

I think the business community would benefit from a single regulatory body for the securities market in this country. It would improve the ability to raise capital for businesses not only in Burlington, but for companies all across this country, including Quebec.

[Business of Supply, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to stand in response to the opposition motion that is before us on the idea of creating a common securities regulator.

I want to thank my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse for sharing his time. My brief experience with him over the last couple of years has demonstrated that he has been very conscientious and doing a fabulous job for his constituents.

While the issue of improving Canada's securities regulatory framework may seem a distant concern for most Canadians, the issue impacts more people than most would likely imagine.

Whether we realize it or not, Canada is a country of investors. From RRSPs to mutual funds, to registered retirement plans or the new proposed tax-free savings accounts, Canadians have been increasingly turning to the markets to build their nest eggs for their financial future and are counting on it to do so.

Largely because of that, the importance of ensuring Canada has the best possible securities regulatory framework has never been more important. Furthermore, this is a concern that is breaking across the stereotypical socio-economic groups one would associate with it.

As a major national labour organization, the National Union of Public and General Employees recently pointed out:

Workers have a huge stake in the integrity of the country's financial system for one basic reason. They have untold billions invested in pension funds, and billions more in RRSPs. Their retirement depends on keeping the system honest.

However, it is clear that Canada does not have the best possible securities regulatory framework and that their exists room for significant improvement.

Unlike most developed countries, Canada lacks a federal securities regulatory body. Rather, it is administered individually in each of the 13 provinces and territories, each with their own separate laws, agencies and commissions.

The current framework of 13 different sets of laws administered by 13 different agencies or commissions has naturally evoked criticism throughout the years.

In an increasingly globalized and competitive world, Canada's system is clearly out of step internationally. This fact is not lost on Canadian business leaders. In June 2007 the Financial Post polled 80% who overwhelmingly indicated our system of multiple provincial securities regulators is harming the economy and that the situation needed urgent remedy.

A representative of that viewpoint is Ian Russell, president of the Investment Industry Association of Canada. He has noted that Canada's current fragmented framework with multiple securities administrators and commissions is clearly not favourable to attracting investment. He said, “Foreigners just find the construct a deterrent. A negative. And there's very much an awareness of that”.

Little wonder that the all-party House of Commons finance committee made its first recommendation in its 2008 pre-budget consultation report for the federal government to take priority action to encourage provinces and territories to reach an agreement about a common securities regulator. As a member of the finance committee, I can clearly indicate that it was a priority for the committee.

I note that the bipartisan cooperation witnessed at the finance committee on this matter was not an isolated incident. Time after time the major relevant political parties in Canada have agreed on the need for an improved securities regulatory framework.

For instance, the previous Liberal finance minister, the current member for Wascana, also understood the urgent need for improvement and reform. During his short-lived tenure as finance minister, he strongly advocated that Canada “take a very serious look at the proposal for a single securities regulatory”, because the issue “just cannot be left to wither away. It is far too important. We need to substantially improve our system in Canada”.

Similarly, the former NDP finance critic, the member for Winnipeg North, openly admitted that she was convinced of the need for a national securities regulator as opposed to a piecemeal provincial approach. She noted at the time, “Canada does not seem to have the tool box necessary to deal with corporate fraud”.

Accordingly, international voices have repeatedly argued that Canada's system at home must be improved. For instance, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, in its 2006 survey of Canada stated, “Securities regulation is currently a provincial responsibility, but the presence of multiple regulators has resulted in inadequate enforcement and inconsistent investor protection and adds to the cost of raising funds”.

More recently, Canada became the first G-7 country to undertake the financial sector assessment program update, which provides International Monetary Fund member countries with comprehensive reviews of the stability of their national financial systems. The assessment also arranges the country's implementation of a range of regulatory standards and codes.

While the IMF characterized the Canadian financial sector as among the world's most highly developed and well managed, it noted that in Canada, “the institutions, markets, infrastructure, safety nets and oversight arrangements that comprise the system are sophisticated, and include a full range of financial intermediaries”. However, the report also concludes that there would be an advantage in moving toward a common securities regulator. In particular it would allow policy development to be streamlined to reduce compliance costs and improve enforcement.

The IMF report also notes that although the passport system of securities regulation will further rationalize the regulatory system for its participants, it will not address the inefficiencies related to costs, delayed policy development and fragmented enforcement. The report states that the participants will still be required to pay fees to the regulatory authorities of all the provinces where they raise capital. Policy development will continue to require approval from 13 jurisdictions. The passport system is not designed to address the limited enforcement authority of individual provincial regulators.

Let us examine in detail the policy development under the current system. The report notes, “the process of adoption of national instruments is protracted, since national instruments need to be individually adopted by each province. Depending on the jurisdiction, ministerial approval may also be needed. In addition, while provinces are committed to harmonizing their regulatory framework, they retain full authority to adopt a local standard”.

Let us also examine the detail of the costs imposed by the current system.

The report notes that “a system of multiple regulators entails additional costs for market participants, including additional direct costs, since participants have to pay fees to all the regulatory authorities of the provinces and territories where they want to raise capital and to provide services; there are also compliance costs and opportunity costs caused by longer review procedures. In addition, there appears to be room for efficiency savings at the regulatory level”.

The report adds that a single regulator “appears to be better positioned to address these shortcomings. There are different alternatives for a single regulator, including the 'common regulator'. A single regulator would probably reduce compliance costs for market participants, since there would be only a single system of fees. It would streamline policy development, since decisions would be taken by a single body, and therefore would allow Canada to react more quickly to local and global developments. A single regulator would have enforcement authority in the whole country, and therefore would be in a better position to eliminate the inefficiencies created by the limited enforcement authority of individual provincial regulators. In addition, the existence of a single regulatory authority responsible for administrative enforcement would help to simplify coordination with other enforcement agencies”.

These are some of the reasons that our government is committed to developing the Canadian advantage in global markets and addressing the issues raised by the IMF.

In my riding of Burlington, there are a number of small and medium size companies. Their opportunity to grow and prosper is limited by their ability to raise capital and by the regulatory framework in this country. Having to register and repeat the work over again in every province and territory hampers their growth and hampers the economic development of this country.

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary reminded me that it is an additional two years, not three years as the member who asked the question indicated.

This motion is about the evolution of the mission. It is about seeing what our men and women have accomplished thus far, from a military point of view in terms of security and safety and a development point of view in terms of providing schools, wells, all those things that add to the quality of life for Afghans. We are working on those issues. This motion is about that evolution, about where we are headed next. That is why we are here today debating the motion. That is why we had a debate last week and why we will have some more debate. Then we will vote on it.

If we read the motion, it is about how the mission has changed and how it continues to evolve and how it has improved the lives of those who live in Afghanistan.

Again I want to thank all the men and women who have made the sacrifice of leaving their families and giving their lives. Their commitment has been overwhelming for me as a member of Parliament. I want to thank them once more.

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I do not look at the end date that is in the motion as a success date, as the member put it. We are successful every day that we are there. Our diplomatic efforts, our development efforts and our military efforts are making a difference on the ground for the men and women and the young people of Afghanistan every single day.

If we took the New Democratic approach and left tomorrow, all the work done and the sacrifices made by our men and women on behalf of Canada in Afghanistan would be or naught.

We need to stay there. We have put a date in the motion because we must let Canadians know when there will be a rotation and when we are leaving. We have put a date there. That does not mean that is the date when we will be successful. We are trying to make a difference and we are successfully making a difference every single day that we are in Afghanistan.

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to congratulate the Prime Minister on his work with the opposition parties to come up with a motion that hopefully can be accepted by the vast majority of this House.

We all know about the troubled history that the country of Afghanistan has experienced and the Afghan people have endured. After decades of war and oppression, Afghanistan now is a burgeoning democracy. Many successes have been achieved since the UN mandated and NATO led mission was deployed to Afghanistan at the request of the Government of Afghanistan.

One of the areas of success has been democracy and governance. Afghanistan has had a long history of difficulties, being located at the crossroads of central, west and south Asia. That is why, on October 9, 2004, Afghanistan's first national democratic presidential election was so important to the future of the country.

On that day, more than eight million Afghans voted. After having had virtually no rights only a few years earlier, women made up 41% of these voters. On November 3, Hamid Karzai was announced as the winner. On December 7, he was inaugurated as Afghanistan's first democratically elected president. In naming his cabinet, President Karzai appointed three women as ministers.

In 2005, the Afghan people, in a national vote, elected their 249-seat lower house, the House of People. As well, the 102-seat House of Elders was elected by the 34 provincial councils. All of this would have been unheard of only a short time earlier, yet the people of Afghanistan, with the help of their international allies, now have a democratically elected national government. During this time, Afghanistan has had the largest refugee repatriation of any country in the world over the last 30 years.

Canada and its allies are working with the Afghan government and the provincial councils on rebuilding the country's infrastructure. A safe and secure environment is critical for the development and reconstruction to take place and to help the Afghans build the foundations for stability.

The country now has 167 district development agencies and over 19,000 community development councils, elected to prioritize infrastructure projects. Of the more than 33,000 local infrastructure projects approved nationwide, more than 16,000 have been completed.

In the province of Kandahar, where Canada heads the provincial reconstruction team, there are more than 530 elected councils and more than 630 projects completed. Canadians have helped build more than 1,200 wells, 80 reservoirs, 500 culverts and 150 kilometres of irrigation systems and canals.

Many kilometres of rural roads have been upgraded, along with road-paving projects on key high traffic routes. The roads are essential for the transportation of goods, especially for Afghan farmers. None of these projects would have been possible without the province being able to maintain security.

Another important area of development is the justice system. Canada is helping to reform the Afghan justice system to promote human rights and to allow better protection of its citizens.

Our country provided training for prosecutors, public defenders, court administrators and legal aid programming, as well as more than 200 judges, including women, and those who will train others to be judges.

Canada is also working to strengthen the Afghan national police so that the Government of Afghanistan can effectively police its own population and bring law and order back to the country, which is sorely needed so that people can feel safe in their own communities.

Canada has been investing in police reform through an approach that includes mentoring, training, funding of salaries, providing equipment and uniforms, and building police facilities.

In Kandahar province alone, Canada has trained more than 475 members of the Afghan national police. Canada has contributed nearly $13 million to a law and order trust fund which helps pay the salaries of the Afghan national police.

All of this assistance to the government of Afghanistan is aimed at building its ability to govern and to leave Afghanistan to Afghans.

As we have helped their country remain secure and governance is developing, Afghanistan has been able to take its rightful place in the international community. Repeated efforts by the Taliban to occupy the Afghanistan seat at the United Nations were unsuccessful. However, now the Afghan people are represented at the UN and around the world.

Afghanistan now enjoys diplomatic relations with dozens and dozens of other countries and has signed a good neighbour declaration with six nations that border Afghanistan to respect its independence and territory. As we help to rebuild the Afghan government and its institutions, Afghanistan will become more and more self-sufficient.

All of these achievements can only come about in a secure environment.

I want to talk about three personal experiences I have had. I have not had the opportunity to go to Afghanistan, but last summer I had the opportunity to go to Alberta for about five or six days to the training centre that this country has for those who are going to serve our country proudly in Afghanistan.

I was very impressed by the facilities that we have for the fine men and women who are going to risk their lives on behalf of our country and Afghans. I was also very impressed with the people I was with there. They were reservists training, wanting to go to Afghanistan, wanting to make a difference in their country and wanting to represent Canada in a very difficult spot. It was an honour for me to be there. It was an opportunity for me to learn while talking to those individuals what was important to them and why they wanted to serve.

Another thing which reinforced my commitment to support the motion for us to continue our work in Afghanistan until 2011 is that we had a red Friday event in my riding, which was a very large rally supporting our troops at our city hall. Some veterans who had been there and had come back spoke to us about the work that is being done on the ground in Afghanistan and why it was important for us to continue our efforts there.

It was a very moving experience for me. The overwhelming desire at the very large rally was that we need to continue to play the role Canada has traditionally played in our history in development, in providing safety and security for others around the world. I was very honoured to be a guest at that rally.

The second last thing I would like to speak about is when I visited the reservists from my riding who were going to Afghanistan. I talked to them about why they were going. I was pretty new in my term as a member of Parliament and it was very moving for me and a very difficult thing for me. I was not sure what to say to them other than to thank them. I thanked each and every one who was going there to serve.

Finally, the hardest vote I have had to make was the vote to extend the mission which we had a couple of years ago. I can say now, based on my experience and my understanding of what we are doing there that I am much more comfortable voting, this week hopefully, on this motion supporting our efforts in Afghanistan. To this end, I will continue to stand up for our soldiers, our development workers, our diplomats and aid workers as they continue to do this very important work on behalf of Canada in Afghanistan.

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Avalon.

It is my honour to speak on this motion regarding our future military and development involvement in Afghanistan. Before I begin, I want to congratulate our Prime Minister, Mr. Harper, on the work he has done with the opposition--

[The Environment, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, global warming is one of the most serious challenges that we face. Our government announced last April the framework of our plan to cut Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. Since then, government officials and ministers have been consulting with environmental groups, provinces and industry to design the details of our plan.

Could the Minister of the Environment tell the House when the government will be releasing the details of our government's plan to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions an absolute 20% by 2020?

[Ethics, March 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, last night the media reported something to which the Liberals should pay close attention. The publisher of the book on the life of Chuck Cadman has temporarily halted production so the May 17 date can be removed from the final version of the book.

The facts, as we have stated many times now, are a meeting took place on May 19 between Chuck Cadman, Doug Finley and Tom Flanagan. This is the only meeting that Mr. Finley and Mr. Flanagan had with Mr. Cadman.

The attempt to misrepresent the truth is despicable, and the members for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Brampton—Springdale and York West should be ashamed of themselves.

I have to go back to the fact that if the Liberals really thought unlawful activity had occurred, why did they wait more than a year to bring these concerns forward?

The Prime Minister has asked the Liberal leader for an apology for his awful remarks. I hope—

[The Budget, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about education. I want to ensure that those who happen to be tuning into this know that we will invest $80 million to three university granting councils, additional money for research in industrial innovation, health priorities and social-economic development in the north, which we think is important. There will be $15 million per year in indirect costs for research programs, building on Canada's knowledge, and for people in genomics, with an additional $140 million for Genome Canada. That is just the small list.

My question is this. Members of the NDP have a long list of things they want to do, but have they it priced out? Does the member have any idea how much it would cost the taxpayer to form that bureaucracy? Does she have any sense of what those additional costs would be?