Paul Szabo

[Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders), April 22nd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, paragraph 3(1) refers to the prevention that the member has mentioned a couple of times. The prevention of crime that it refers to is the recidivism. What the member has not talked about is the importance of preventing any crime from happening in the first place.

The member should also understand that the rate of criminal activity, serious crime, particularly property crime, accelerates and tracks perfectly with unemployment rates in Canada as well. A sound economy is also an important element of crime prevention.

Would the member at least acknowledge that crime prevention should not start after the first crime?

[Committees of the House, April 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

In accordance with its order of reference of Wednesday, March 3, 2010, the committee has considered vote 40 under Treasury Board in the main estimates for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011, and reports the same less the amounts in the interim supply.

[Afghanistan, April 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, let us consider accountability on the Afghan detainee issue.

When allegations were made, the government attacked those who gave evidence. Is that the reaction we would expect from someone who has nothing to hide?

When parliamentarians raised concerns, they were accused of being unpatriotic. Does that mean we must ignore our international obligations in order to be patriotic?

When documents were requested by Parliament, the government hired a former judge to do a study instead of finding a solution compatible with the powers of Parliament.

Delay, denial and deception are incompatible with accountability. It is time for the government to be accountable by agreeing to a resolution which ensures both compliance with international law and full protection of our military. Now, that is patriotic.

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member has raised a number of issues that we could talk about in terms of proportional representation or rep by pop.

Diane Marleau, a former colleague of ours, had a bill that concerned northern Ontario. She was making the point that as the population of Canada concentrates and the proportion of northern communities goes down, their representation shrinks, or the riding size becomes so enormous to the point that constituents in those very large ridings would never see their member of Parliament because the member of Parliament could not possibly get around the community.

Obviously, rep by pop in its pristine form is not possible, but maybe we should be looking at how to protect reasonable representation for northern communities, Labrador, P.E.I., and Newfoundland. Maybe then we could deal with the rest of the country in terms of rep by pop.

I wonder what she thinks of that.

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech reminds me of speeches that were given when we talked about the concept of Quebec as a nation. A lot of these issues came up.

I must admit that I have heard from some constituents regarding their concerns about Quebec and should this situation continue along the line as there is a redistribution of the population and we grow and we take it to its extreme. Do we get ourselves into a position where the arguments become maybe a little more sensitive simply because of harmony within the country and the importance of the francophone element of Canada?

I want the member to muse about what happens as we move beyond tomorrow and look at how Canada evolves, and where we lose reasonable populations in remote areas in Canada. This urbanization and clustering of Canada does change the system. Maybe what we need to be looking at is a reform of our electoral and representation system for Canada as a whole that would move toward things such as rep by pop, if we could open up the Constitution.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, April 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his personal knowledge of the Colombian situation. It is always helpful to get a perspective.

I spoke to this particular bill some time ago and one of the key aspects was the corrupt judicial system within Colombia. The number of murders was staggering and there were virtually no prosecutions whatsoever. This is concerning to me. The member did not comment on the state of the judicial system there.

I would be interested to know if he is aware of any jurisdiction, other than his heart, where improving trade with that jurisdiction would have a substantive effect on human rights abuses within that country?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, April 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member has crafted a speech that raises all the concerns members have had at second reading. However, the member will well know that, at second reading, we are talking to ourselves.

I think the important part here is that we express our concerns about human rights. I think virtually every speaker, unanimously, in the House has expressed concern about human rights abuses in Colombia and with any of the people we trade with. There are a lot of countries around the world that have very poor human rights records as well.

The question then becomes whether or not it is our responsibility to see this bill go to committee after second reading so that we can hear from the expert witnesses, the human rights advocates and those who will try to explain to the committee whether or not trade will, in fact, have a beneficial impact on the human rights situation in a country like Colombia. If not, that kind of evidence and testimony would certainly give parliamentarians a better perspective from which to craft a strategy for dealing with trade with those countries who have problems with humanitarian rights.

Would the member like to see some of these human rights groups come to committee and make the case to support some of her arguments, or does she just want to ignore what the international bodies are saying and decide right now that we are not going to be able to carry this any further? Should we not hear from those witnesses?

[Income Tax Act, April 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-470, brought forward by the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville, which has to do with charities.

I support this bill very much. I am little concerned because there has been some misinformation of which I think members should be aware. Probably the best reason this bill should go to committee is to enable the charitable institutions and foundations to provide some input. I understand there was concern in the charitable sector initially, but that actually has turned around. I believe there are some 85,000 charities.

I approach this not from the standpoint that I am looking for some charity that is doing something that it should not be doing. What is needed is greater transparency, openness and accountability. We are talking about taxpayers' dollars. When people make a charitable donation, they claim that donation and get the appropriate tax credit on their income tax return. All Canadians, all taxpayers, are subsidizing the contribution to various charitable organizations and foundations. From that standpoint, it is very consistent that disclosure of relevant information should be made available to all Canadians about how their tax dollars are being spent.

I do not think there are many people who have not heard some conversation about exactly who is getting how much and how much of their dollars is actually hitting the ground and helping the people they want to help. The United Way is asked this question all the time, and it reports on it and it boasts about it. Campaign 2000, which helps deal with the issue of child poverty, is constantly looking at how much money is actually going toward helping people and promoting the alleviation of child poverty in Canada.

It is extremely important that we look at this from the accountability aspect.

Today I received a letter from the Prime Minister's chief of staff, who subsequent to his appearance before the ethics committee on the subject matter, provided copies of the letters that he sent out to the ministers indicating that it is a responsibility of the government to promote accountability, transparency and openness. I think the House concurs. It is the law. It is a charter right.

I know where some of the confusion has arisen for some members who may have looked at this. It is one of those cases that if we just hear the short version, or the summary, we may get an impression which is not reflective of the full detail of the bill. The summary of this bill states, “This enactment amends the Income Tax Act to revoke the registration of a charitable organization, public foundation or private foundation if the annual compensation it pays to any single executive or employee exceeds $250,000”, period.

That is how the summary was drafted, but that is not exactly what the bill would do. The bill would not revoke the registration of a charity, or a private or a public foundation, if it pays any one person more than $250,000. The bill requires the disclosure and the minister may look at it. It is not absolute; it is optional. It is a matter that the minister may invoke if there is clear abuse. There is some ministerial discretion. This is not a black and white situation, that if a charity pays somebody over $250,000 that, all of a sudden, the registration of the charity is revoked.

I hope that members will look carefully at this. This is one question that has to be totally clarified in committee to absolutely ensure, to the assurance of all hon. members, that this bill is not an attack on charities.

The government deputy House leader had made an indication that in his view there was a royal recommendation required for the bill, and I think he made an interesting argument. However, the bill effectively only amplifies or adds further criteria under which the minister responsible for the act in question, the Income Tax Act, can have the latitude to take decisions if it is appropriate.

The Speaker ruled that in fact there was not a need for a ways and means motion for this amendment to the Income Tax Act. I think members should take some solace from that. The bill is a sound bill, it is a clean bill and it should go to committee to hear from the stakeholders who may be affected and may be concerned.

It is always good when we can have people on side. They will come before committee, they will ask their questions or make their representations and things will be clarified. Then it is not just what a half dozen people happen to say during the debate at second reading in the House based on their own information or knowledge, but it is the experts. It is those who are in the business and who can provide the details and the commentary on the legislation and its implications and make recommendations for changes to the bill if necessary. That is what the committee is for.

We cannot make amendments here on second reading. We can say that we have some concern about this aspect and we hope that the committee will do that. Those are the kinds of things that happen from time to time. The committee stage is extremely important.

I believe this is an important bill, primarily from the standpoint of the openness and transparency requirements and the accountability requirements that we expect from all matters as they relate to governing the taxpayers' dollars.

The member in question has been here for more than 20 years. I know she does her homework. Anyone who knows the member knows that she is a member of great integrity. She has not brought many bills before this place, but when she does, look out, because she is responding to critical issues in which the public interest is to be served.

I am not going to get into this, but people may want to look at her background. The member has a reputation for bringing matters that I think are extremely important for us to consider.

This is not an inconsequential bill. It is a significant bill. It is a bill that I believe will get a thorough hearing at committee, and I believe it will pass at all stages and become law.

There was a question that came up in one meeting I was at that I want to raise as well, about whether or not this would affect universities, and people were talking about foundations.

As we know, many hospitals have a fundraising wing that is separate from the hospital operations themselves, separate and incorporated entities to raise money for hospitals. These would be maintained separately. The bill would not affect hospitals or other foundations that are set up for that purpose. It is a small detail, one question only, but it is the kind of question that has come up.

Therefore I wanted to rise in the House today to say that I have taken the time to look at it. I heard the member present her bill in debate. I heard her represent her position last week in the media. After people asked their questions and got the answers, to fully understand, it is amazing how the outlook on the bill has turned so dramatically.

I want to leave it at that, and I want to encourage all members of Parliament to please vote for the bill on second reading and to encourage the committee to do appropriate hearings to ensure that we make good laws and wise decisions.

[Business of Supply, April 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for presenting this motion to the House. Canadians have been waiting for some leadership on this issue, and they are certainly not getting it from the government.

I looked at the briefing notes and I think there is one the member might be able to amplify on. It says:

Canada's national goal is now to cut its emissions to just over 600 million tonnes by 2020, a level equivalent to about 3% above the 1990 level. To put that in context, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions in 2007 were 747 million tonnes, or 26% above their 1990 level.

It is obvious that we are not going to get anywhere close to achieving the government's current targets unless there is a plan. Could the member comment on that?

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, April 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this place had an emergency debate that went until midnight the other night on the very subject. It really goes to the point that I made earlier about the success of a country. It is really not an economic measure. It is a measure of the health and well-being of its people and its first nations people in particular.

We have very serious problems. I am concerned that the government thinks it will somehow balance the books over five, six or eight years but it is not thinking about the consequences of its actions. Whether it has to do with crime, aboriginal health issues, children, age or pensions, it has not even thought about it. All it wants to do is talk about its economic action plan. It spent $5 million during the Olympics to tell people that it was called the “Economic Action Plan”. That is what I call irresponsible government.