Mike Wallace

[Member for Okanagan--Coquihalla, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, accusations were made by the Liberals that the Minister of Public Safety was involved in the Jim Hart issue. They were calling for an RCMP investigation and the member for Ajax—Pickering even called for the minister to step aside.

Has the minister heard back from the RCMP and, if so, would he report to the House what the answer was?

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member from the NDP talked about Bill C-30 and about Bill C-288. We are technically debating what the Bloc has put in front of us.

My issue is this. I have heard a number of times today about fearmongering about the numbers. I guess my colleague does not like the numbers. Those members are certainly capable of talking about what is going to happen to the environment if we do not do anything. We agree that we need to do something about it, but we do not call that fearmongering. When they get the facts on the financial side on Bill C-288, they like to call it fearmongering, which just does not make any coherent sense to me.

It would take a cut of about 30% a year to 2012 because we have to catch up from where we were to get to where we have to be in order to meet those targets in 2012. Based on Bill C-288, which is in front of the Senate, and based on the fact that we are so far behind because of Liberal inaction, does my colleague think it is actually feasible to cut greenhouse gases with no cost to the economy at a rate of 30% a year between now and 2012?

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to sit here and listen to the fearmongering and so on.

The Minister of the Environment, through the private member's bill presented by the Liberals, was asked what the cost would be of meeting our Kyoto targets immediately. He did exactly what he was asked to do. They may not like the answer but the fact is that it actually will have some economic cost. It was not just done by the economists within the government departments. It was also reviewed and verified by independent economists.

We knew that if the bill were to become law that there would be devastating economic issues to be dealt with. However, that does not mean that we do not believe we should deal with our Kyoto targets and that we do not believe that something needs to be done about greenhouse gases.

We have been working on that. We can look at ecotrusts, ecotransport, ecoenergy and what we did on the transit system. We put $4.5 billion in the budget that, hopefully, the House will pass. We have been spending money and putting programs together to actually take action.

In the next number of weeks, the minister will be announcing the hard targets that we are expecting. We have been moving on this side of the House and we have been taking action. For members to pretend that we are not and to say that we are fearmongering, I must say that being honest with Canadians is not fearmongering. I think Canadians expect an approach that is appropriate from their government.

If there is a carbon exchange, would the member still support it if it were not in Montreal?

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not quite finish his speech. He was going to talk about the exchange, I believe, and I want to give him an opportunity to tell me what he was going to say about that.

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there is only a little difference between what my friend from the Bloc is saying and what we are actually doing. We are saying as soon as possible and he wants things done immediately, which might be physically impossible.

I certainly am committed to the objectives of the Kyoto protocol. We on this side of the House wholeheartedly agree that there is an urgent need to reduce greenhouse gases and pollution and we have been working on that. Since the member is on the finance committee, he knows that we put $4.5 billion in the recent budget to deal with those issues.

My question for the member concerns part the motion in front of us. The motion reads, “as expeditiously as possible, of a carbon exchange in Montreal”. The Bloc has been very clear that it is interested in the establishment of a carbon exchange. I am not sure whether it means all government money, all private money, all international or all national, but that is not the issue here.

If the Government of Canada decides to proceed with a carbon exchange, could the member tell me why it needs to be in Montreal? Since we are a national government for the country of Canada, could it be in another part of this country?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, April 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from Sault Ste. Marie for his discussion today, while, as my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills said, I do not agree with everything the member has said.

There is one thing I want to point out to the House and I am going to ask the member to comment on what his party's position is on it. I was very proud of the Conservative government and the budget in introducing a savings plan for those who have children with severe disabilities.

In my other life, I worked for Easter Seals, which provides services to children with physical disabilities.There are many challenges for parents who have children with a disability and for grandparents too.

This plan will allow them to invest in a program so that once parents are unable to care for their child because they have moved on, the disabled person will be able to access those funds and will be able to carry on with their living environment. I would appreciate knowing what the NDP's position is on that piece of legislation in this budget.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, April 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise and debate this with my colleague from the other side.

The Liberals voted against the ways and means motion. They are probably going to vote against the budget as it goes. I want to point out that the Liberals are voting against the new working income tax benefit the working poor, the new $2,000 child tax credit, the $16 billion in new infrastructure funding, the $1.5 billion for the provinces and the territories to help develop environmental measures, $600 million to reduce patient wait times, $300 million to combat cervical cancer, $1 billion in tax cuts for seniors, a 40% increase in post-secondary education transfers to the provinces and $20 million in establishment. There are a few more things I could go through.

He spent all that time on income trusts, but the member across was quoted as saying on Question Period on CTV, November 5, 2006, the following:

It was absolutely the right thing, and we had started on this track to protect the tax base, to ensure tax fairness and to work for the productivity of the nation.

Did he or did he not say that on national television on a Sunday morning on November 6?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, April 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by my colleague from the New Democratic Party, but I do not agree with her at all. She talked about truth. What is important for Canadians is there needs to be some truth in what is said in the House.

I have the budget in front of me. I went through it a couple of times as a member of the finance committee. For example, we have introduced the WITB, which is a program to help people get over the welfare wall, to give the working poor in this country an advantage. If someone leaves social services and starts a job at $8.25 an hour, our program in the end will improve that person's quality of life and his or her disposable income by 25%. That is an important piece that we are providing for working families.

The member said that we are not doing anything to address the gap between those who have and those who do not. We are doing what we can. We have outlined a program in the budget that directly affects people's ability to move ahead as a family economically in this country.

The member also stated that there was no mention of culture in the budget. That is absolutely not true. If she would turn to page 98 of the budget, it talks about a program of $30 million over two years for local arts and heritage festivals; summer museum internships to help small museums across the country get the quality people they need to provide the services and programs that communities are demanding; and a Canadian heritage sports program to help sports that are important to the history of this country.

My question--

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, April 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Halton has missed his calling. He treats this place as a theatre and does not take the issues seriously. He is obviously playing for the television.

Here is what I want to ask. First, on November 7 did he or did he not vote for the Conservative government's income trust motion?

Second, “my vote acknowledged that wholesale corporate conversions to trusts are unhealthy”. Is this true or not that these were his words on www.garth.ca on November 6, 2006?

Third, “reforming the income trust business and stemming the tide of conversions is necessary for the long term health of this economy”, again on his website and spoken by him. Is this true or not? Did he say it?

Fourth, “too many new conversions, lost tax revenues, unfairness in corporate tax treatment, money leaking to foreign investors, the threat of the banks morphing into trusts, the writing was on the wall--

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, April 16th, 2007]

Remember the GST.