Mike Wallace

[Canada Elections Act, May 9th, 2007]

No, Mr. Speaker, it is not a prepared question. It is interesting that the Bloc member brought up the prepared question in question period, something those members will never experience, because as we know the Bloc will never form the government of this country. That party is not interested in being part of this country. I am not sure exactly why those members are here.

There is another part of this that I would like to comment on. I happen to be on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Since my colleague brought it up, when we tabled the Federal Accountability Act in this House we also tabled the open government proposal, which was proposed by the former information commissioner, and a response paper that went with it. That was referred to our committee.

It was the Bloc members who said to our minister that they did not want to deal with that. The issue was that they wanted the minister to go away and do something, even though this House had committed a piece of potential legislation, or at least a framework for it, to that committee for its review. It was the Bloc members who led the charge not to deal with it at that time.

Based on his response earlier today, does the member feel that the members of his party on the ethics committee should change their position and move to review the open government proposal that had been provided to us?

[Canada Elections Act, May 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by the member opposite on the topic we are discussing, accountability with respect to loans, but if people had tuned in to listen to the member half-way through his 20 minute speech, they would not have had a clue about the bill we are debating. The member went off onto other tangents, which he, like any other member, is entitled to do, but I would like to bring us back to the debate on the bill.

The bill we are debating today deals with loans for those running for office and its principles are fourfold. It establishes a uniform and more transparent reporting regime for all loans to political parties, associations and candidates. Unions and corporations will now be banned from making loans to political parties, associations and candidates, consistent with the Federal Accountability Act. Total loans, loan guarantees and contributions by individuals cannot exceed the annual limit, which in 2007 is $1,100. Only financial institutions can give loans at commercial interest rates to political parties. The rules for the treatment of unpaid loans will be tightened to ensure that candidates cannot walk away from unpaid loans. The actual riding associations will be responsible.

That is really what we are debating today. I know that my colleague from the Bloc started by talking about that. I just want to be on the record to make sure that people watching or listening at home will understand what we are talking about today. I also want to confirm that the Bloc is supportive of those four principles or changes. Is there anything in the bill that it is not supporting?

[Canada Elections Act, May 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech, in which he talked about a number of issues, and I appreciate the questions from the hon. member from the Bloc on this particular topic, but I am still not absolutely clear.

The member said that some of the things in the bill are in the right direction, that it might take some amendments and so on and so forth. I like to be clear and I think Canadians like to be clear. The hon. member has read the bill and knows what we are trying to do. I cannot figure out whether the Liberals are interested in supporting this in principle and sending it to committee for further amendments or not. I would like an answer to that question.

[National Security, May 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, recently the Conservative members of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics had to write a dissenting opinion regarding one significant recommendation that was presented in the House.

The opposition parties, including the Liberals, voted to completely remove a section of the PIPEDA legislation that goes directly to protecting Canadians from any threat of any future terrorist attacks. This was without any input from stakeholders, including airport authorities or any other security agency for that matter.

The Liberals want to prevent our security agencies from collecting and using information related to national security, defence and international affairs. They do not even support the anti-terrorism protection measures that they included in legislation that they created. This is a sad and ridiculous attempt at partisan politics.

We have a responsibility to protect the lives of our citizens. Our new government will always stand up for the safety and security of all Canadians.

[Income Tax Act, May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today we are continuing the debate on Bill C-207, a bill proposing a tax credit for new graduates working in certain designated regions.

While one can recognize the aim of such a measure and the desire to foster economic development in forming that measure, the proposal in Bill C-207 is saddled with a number of fundamental flaws.

The chief flaw of Bill C-207 is that while it encourages recent graduates to remain or relocate in designated regions, it does nothing to generate new employment in those regions. As a result, it could be argued that the proposed credit would primarily benefit individuals working in such regions regardless of the presence or absence of the tax credit. In that light, such a measure would clearly not be an effective avenue for this purpose.

This also speaks to a larger problem with Bill C-207. The bill proposes to address the issue of economic development in essentially a temporary or fragmented manner. Properly fostering economic development involves a multi-faceted approach responsive to local needs and creating strategic partnerships between businesses and public institutions, the community and other stakeholders.

Canada's national economy is highly diversified across different economic regions with varied needs in terms of workers' skills. The skill sets needed to work in the offshore oil industry in Newfoundland differ significantly from those needed to work in the high tech sector in Waterloo. As well, at any point in time each of these sectors will experience business cycles and economic adjustment.

Economic adjustment is constantly taking place and is a sign of a healthy and flexible economy. Most economically successful adjustments happen naturally and without intervention from government.

Governments, domestic and international, have been moving away from subsidies. Instead they have been focusing support toward fostering high valued added economic activity through education, innovation and infrastructure.

Canada's new government promotes innovation, research and development and post-secondary education through a variety of programs that benefit directly and indirectly students pursuing post-secondary education. For instance, as confirmed in budget 2007, federal investment in granting councils and the Canada Foundation for Innovation, among others, will total $1.4 billion this year.

We also support an assortment of economic development programs totalling $1.2 billion through the regional development agencies, like the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

The regional development agencies work in partnership with stakeholders to tailor their specific programs to meet the economic development needs of their local communities. These programs include support for small to medium size enterprises which can benefit recent graduates.

The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, ACOA, has a program that provides an excellent illustration of this approach. The export internship for trade graduates initiative provides training and employment opportunities to international trade specialists graduating from colleges and universities in Atlantic Canada.

Small and medium size enterprises receive help to acquire the expertise they need to successfully develop and implement an international marketing plan. Eligible companies work with ACOA and post-secondary institutions to select qualified graduates with training in international business. Together the employer and the intern develop and implement a strategic export plan for that company. At the conclusion of the internship, the employer can apply through ACOA for assistance to retain the graduate's services for up to three additional years.

The Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec offers other examples of how Canada's new government supports similar programs that involve a multi-faceted approach to regional development. The innovation, development, entrepreneurship and access program for small to medium enterprises is a financial assistance program that fosters the growth of small and medium size enterprises in Quebec, helping these businesses become more competitive in the world markets in activities ranging from product development to marketing plans.

Also, the community economic diversification initiative - vitality, CEDI-vitality, is an initiative designed to support communities in seven regions and 21 Quebec regional county municipalities with slower economic growth. The initiative helps foster economic development by supporting the diversification of the economic base of these communities to create sustainable long term jobs, jobs that will stem, or even prevent, the exodus of youth from these regions.

Small and medium size enterprises, business groups and industry associations can all apply under vitality for assistance in the development of strategies and action plans, capital projects for enterprise startup and business expansion, and marketing of new products and services. The program also assists with the establishment of entrepreneurship support organizations, projects aimed at enhancing cooperation between knowledge institutions, such as universities and colleges, and the business community.

In 2006-07 total government support of these programs will total over $380 million.

These are the types of regional development measures that define a multi-faceted approach. They are forward looking in promoting export markets in an increasingly globalized economy. They involve key stakeholders, employers and post-secondary institutions to help create new opportunities for new graduates, and they work.

Bill C-207 proposes a tax credit nowhere near as well targeted. It proposes a tax credit that would do nothing to foster economic development conducive to job growth. It would do nothing to create the opportunities vital for the retention of those new graduates. Yet the proposed credit would cost up to $600 million annually. I submit that this would be an inefficient use of public funds.

Canada's new government takes seriously the challenge of ensuring Canada is equipped for an increasingly competitive global market. We are all working for all regions of Canada. All young people need to be given the opportunity to acquire the skills and training so that Canada can have a knowledge advantage with the best educated, most skilled and most flexible workforce in the world.

Canadian businesses need to operate in an environment that encourages investment and innovation. When Canada succeeds, we all succeed.

Bill C-207 proposes to use a tax credit to encourage young people to stay in a particular region. Yet it does not help create the type of employment opportunities that would provide an incentive for a young person to stay there. It ignores the varied nature of Canada's economy and that 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, employ strategic partnerships with other stakeholders and are multi-faceted in their approach.

This Conservative government is working to improve the standard of living and quality of life for all Canadians. This government is working to make Canada a world leader for today and for future generations.

Bill C-207 does nothing like that. Instead, it proposes to spend up to $600 million on a tax credit that would not help create a single additional job.

For these reasons, I am unable to support this legislation. I hope that my colleagues, after taking full account of the larger picture, will decline to support this bill.

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2007]

They should.

At any rate, based on the conversation the hon. member had with us here in the House, I am not clear about the Liberal position.

In Bill C-10 we are increasing the mandatory minimum penalties for use of a firearm in the commission of a crime. That graduates upward. The hon. member was quoting U.S. statistics and so on and saying that mandatory minimums do not work or that the U.S. is moving away from that.

Is it the Liberal position that you would like the Government of Canada to move away from and get rid of mandatory minimum sentences?

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's intervention. I will be very quick so others may ask questions.

The hon. member is from Etobicoke North. My in-laws live at Royal York and Eglinton, so he may be their member of Parliament for now.

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with my Bloc colleague's presentation on the bill before us, Bill C-10.

The previous speaker talked about causes. I am actually a board member of an organization called Transitions for Youth which helps young people, who are in trouble or who are about to get in trouble, to find a better way than the criminal courts or other areas. We have worked very hard at promoting what it does in the community. It does great work there and I am proud to be associated with that group.

I do agree that kind of work needs to be done but we also know that once one commits a crime, particularly with a gun, which is what the bill deals with, we need to have the framework to ensure they are penalized for what they do. We do need to make communities safer and I believe mandatory minimum penalties will do that.

Based on the Bloc member's position on the bill before us, am I to understand that the current four year minimum, regardless of the number of previous convictions, is good enough for her communities?

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from British Columbia on the other side of the House for made some interesting comments in terms of the coming of the Liberals' view of how they were going to be pro-security for Canadians. Based on what the they have done recently, it is hard to believe that they are on this.

We are debating Bill C-10 today. It has a five year mandatory minimum penalty for a first conviction using a firearm, seven years for a second conviction and ten years for a third and subsequent convictions. Under the present system, it is currently four years, regardless of previous convictions.

Does my colleague from British Columbia support getting tough on criminals who use guns? For mandatory minimum penalties, what does he not like about having people serve time for serious crimes?

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2007]

I've got a question for you Sukh.