Mike Wallace

[Iran, March 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Iran is currently holding 15 British sailors captive claiming that they trespassed in Iranian waters. However, the U.K. has denied that the crew trespassed. The UN Security Council issued the following statement:

Members of the Security Council support calls, including by the Secretary-General in his 29 March meeting with the Iranian Foreign Minister, for an early resolution of this problem, including the release of the 15 United Kingdom personnel.

Would the Minister of Foreign Affairs inform this House what our government's position is on this matter?

[Quarantine Act, March 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as the critic for health, I listened intently to the member for Oakville on the Quarantine Act. She certainly went astray and talked about a number of other issues. I am going to ask her about the issues that were in her speech.

Can the member for Oakville stand in the House today and tell us that the threat of terrorism no longer exists and that is why she voted the way she did on those provisions? Has she given the same speech to members of her own party who supported us in maintaining those provisions in the Anti-terrorism Act?

She mentioned that the Liberal Party was open to debate and discussion on different items. Just this past week her own leader kicked out a member of her party who claimed that he was going to vote for our budget. Is that the kind of openness she was talking about in her discussions?

[Criminal Code, March 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that reverse onus has been proven legal in a number of circumstances. I believe, and I want him to clarify this for me and he even mentioned it in his speech on this topic this morning, that for organized crime and importation of drugs reverse onus is required. So, it is not the crown which has to prove someone is not a threat to society, but those who are facing the bail hearing have to prove they are not. It does not say that there is not the potential still to get bail but who is responsible for proving that.

Is the member saying to me today that the Bloc believes that potentially individuals who have been charged, but not found guilty, with a firearm related offence does not have the same amount of importance as those who have been charged with an organized crime issue or those charged with the importation of drugs?

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Your goose is going to be cooked in the next election.

I want to ask the member if he agrees with the O'Brien recommendations or not.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the presentation from my colleague across the way. I also sit on the finance committee with him and I appreciate his comments.

In general, I think, there is some confusion among the public. In my latest householder, for example, I indicated the difference between a fiscal payment and an equalization payment. In this budget, the actual equalization payments have gone up by over $1.5 billion in total, I believe, and I think the total is around $12.5 billion.

The fiscal payments, the actual payments that are tied to actual spending in terms of health care, post-secondary education and social services, are a much bigger chunk of what we spend. If I recall correctly, last year we sent the provinces a little over $50 billion.

We can see that there is a significant difference. We have to keep in mind that equalization is an issue that was identified in our Constitution. It is a constitutional item and it is not geared to each province in terms of how it is spent. We may see different provinces spending differently.

I appreciate having a discussion on this topic because I think it is important. I do not agree with the motion that is in front of us because I think it is disingenuous.

I would tell the member who spoke that we relied on changing the formula or at least giving an option for the formula to Newfoundland and Labrador, for example. We gave that province an option based on a report that was done by Mr. O'Brien--

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's presentation. I sit on the finance committee with him and he is always well-prepared and well-spoken, and I normally disagree with him.

He began his discussion today talking about the motion before us, a motion from the official opposition, but then went on to other topics. I fundamentally disagree with him. For example, he talked about the need to have Bloc members in the House because they are the only ones defending Quebec's interests. That is absolutely not the case and is erroneous, in my opinion. We have a great team of members from Quebec on my side of the bench who do a great job in defending the rights and issues that affect Quebec directly.

I am a little confused by his presentation. I want to clarify something with the member as to where he was going. The budget states:

Fulfilling the Commitment to Respect the Offshore Accords

To respect the Offshore Accords, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador may continue to operate under the previous Equalization system until their existing offshore agreements expire. This fulfills and builds upon the Government’s commitment to respect the Offshore Accords and ensures that these provinces will continue to receive the full benefit that they are entitled to under the previous system. These provinces can permanently opt into the new Equalization system at any point in the future.

It is in writing in a number of spots. I know the member can answer this question because he is quite an intelligent young man. I could not tell, based on his presentation, whether the Bloc would actually be supporting what is in front of us, which I think is a disingenuous statement about where we stand with the offshore accords that have been signed.

The motion will go to a vote this evening. Could the Bloc member tell me whether the Bloc Party has decided to support the opposition motion today or oppose it?

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague had some very interesting comments. I do not agree with 99.999% of what he had to say.

Whether the roots of the Conservatives, and mine are with the Progressive Conservative Party, are in the Reform, Alliance or Progressive Conservative, one sure thing is this party stands up for the protection and security of all Canadians. We will do what has to done to ensure that terrorism does not wield its ugly head again in our country.

We want to extend the two clauses in the legislation, legislation that was brought in by the Liberals, and the Liberals should be in support of that. It is an absolute ridiculous statement to say that the Conservatives are not in favour of that protection. That is why we are here. That is why I am here. Where we come from has nothing to do with it. It is what we want to do in the future for our country.

The other comment the member made, which I thought was very interesting, was that a Canadian was a Canadian and what did we did to the Lebanese. He should check the website of his new member for Halton. The new member for Halton in the newspaper, on his website and in his blog talked about whether we should spend all our taxpayer money bringing back part time Canadians. It is a Liberal member who stated that, not our guy. He needs to have a little discussion with the new member of his party.

Does he not believe that terrorism is still as much of a problem today as it was on 9/11 and previous to that? With the changes in technology and in the world, is terrorism not as much an issue as it was ? Should we not do everything possible as a Canadian government to protect Canadian citizens from further terrorist acts?

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague works very hard on the law and order issues that face us here in Parliament. I appreciate his comments because of his experience as a law enforcement officer and his intimate knowledge of what police forces need in terms of support from elected officials on the valuable work they do in this country.

I wonder if my colleague as a former police officer and with the knowledge that he has wants to comment on how important it is that Parliament support legislation that will continue to support the police in their efforts to make sure this country and all of its citizens are safe from terrorism.

[Income Tax Act, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will focus my comments on the amendment that has been proposed by our friend from the Bloc.

First of all, it was interesting to me that it was not discussed at all. We sit on the finance committee where we reviewed this bill recently. To be frank, based on the discussion at that committee, we were able to get what I would say was all party support for the changes to the tax system where it reflects an employee-employer relationship for not for profit or small junior clubs.

The bill applies to a lot of things. I want to say to the member opposite that I do not mind his concept in terms of providing some sort of assistance to athletes at the college and university level. In fact I have two daughters who are very competitive volleyball players who may some day benefit from being university or college volleyball players, and some assistance might be of interest, but let us not confuse that with what is proposed in the private member's bill that is in front of us today.

It is a $300 opportunity, and that was even adjusted at committee, to help a club and young people afford to be junior hockey players in this country. That is not for major junior. It is junior A, junior B and midget players who are boarding somewhere, trying to progress as athletes. This is a simple proposal to help them, through the tax system, to afford to be billeted somewhere else.

I am absolutely standing in favour of what the private member's bill is for. I am standing today opposed to what the amendment is, because it does not actually fit.

I would suggest to the member opposite that if he or his party is interested in supporting amateur athletes at the university and college level, who are often, as was previously pointed out, over 21 when they are there, that that is a separate issue that should be brought in front of the House for a proper debat, sent to committee to be properly debated and discussed, and brought back here.

I would suggest to the members of the House that if the amendment still stands, if it has not been withdrawn, that we reject the amendment, and that we move to vote in support of this private member's bill so that we can have this in law in time for the next hockey season.

I am not sure how well thought out the amendment was, and based on some brief discussions I have heard by the mover of the main motion, there is some ambiguity in what it covers, such as the age and how it affects the Income Tax Act, and that we should, at the very least, look at it separately.

I would ask that the House not support the amendment and then move to the debate on the main motion and support that main motion at that time.

[Health, February 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, HIV-AIDS affects people from all walks of life in all parts of the world. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health, the Minister of International Cooperation and the Minister of Industry, along with Mr. Bill Gates, announced funding for research into the development of an HIV vaccine.

Would the Minister of International Cooperation share with the House the importance of this initiative in regard to HIV-AIDS research?