Peter Van Loan

[Small Arms, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the member has said, this government in fact is very concerned about the flow of small arms, their potential to harm lives and to destabilize conflict situations.

Canada is committed to looking at entering into a treaty and forwarding discussions in that regard. Canada has historically been a leader in disarmament measures. We will continue to be on this issue as well.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of York—Simcoe an enormous population of seniors live in places like Sutton-By-The-Lake and Sandycove Acres. I know I work very hard to represent their concerns. They have done a great deal in contributing to our country, and we have to pay them full respect.

The government has done that with measures in the budget, such as doubling the amount of pension income that is sheltered from income tax, from $1,000 to $2,000. That will benefit nearly 2.7 million taxpayers. As well, the cut in the GST will make a big difference. This is a tax that is paid disproportionately by seniors, who are not necessarily paying a great deal of income tax, but who have to pay GST on everything. So they appreciate that.

I grew up in a environment situation where, while my mother worked, my grandmother raised me, to a large extent. Those kind of informal situations are very common in my riding. There are a lot of grandparents who assist with the raising of their children's children. That is the kind of situation our choice in child care policy is designed to assist. I know my mother, who was working in a very challenging situation, and my grandmother would have appreciated the assistance of a little additional income, the $1,200 each for two children. It would have made a big difference.

Does the member not feel that this kind of benefit could help those seniors to allow them the opportunity, instead of institutional child care as an option, to contribute to their grandchildren's rearing, to be part of their family, to strengthen the family relationships and to allow them to continue to be strong contributing members of society they have always been?

I believe that is the case. I am interested to know if the member believes that.

[Foreign Affairs, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this government is very concerned about the flow of small arms as they have a habit of destabilizing troubled spots in the world, particularly in poverty stricken and conflict ridden places. Obviously we are interested in whatever measures can be taken to stop this destabilizing flow of weapons. We will be looking at participating and whether that is appropriate in terms of a small arms treaty.

[Foreign Affairs, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this government places the protection and the promotion of freedom, human rights, democracy and the rule of law as central to our international agenda. We are greatly concerned with the recent deterioration of human rights in Syria and Egypt.

In Syria, voluntary association and community activists, intellectuals and other citizens are being arrested as they promote human rights and seek to build the democratic opposition. We expect Syria to respect international human rights law and to move forward with democratic reforms.

In Egypt, we are concerned that disciplinary measures have been taken against two judges, that excessive force has been used against protesters, and that the opposition leader, Mr. Ayman Nour, remains incarcerated. Our embassy has led international efforts to visit and support Mr. Nour and will continue to do so. We are also disappointed by the decision to renew the state of emergency for a further two years despite earlier promises to bring it to an end.

We call upon other countries to stand up for freedom, human rights, democracy and the rule of law as fundamental values that can no longer be trampled upon.

[Convention Against Torture, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Canada remains strongly committed to human rights. In fact, under our new government, there is a renewed commitment to human rights. We will be advancing that. We will be looking at the issues raised by the protocol on the treaty on torture in examining our appropriate next moves.

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, one of the treasured things we value in our country is respect for the authority of our provinces, the differences between the provinces and the federal government, and the autonomy we grant to our academic institutions. As the member well knows, tuition is set by the academic institutions under provincial law. We are not in a position to directly influence that, and I know the member understands that.

The issue is, what can the federal government do to support these things? We are in discussions with the provinces, trying to find ways to deal with this complicated situation and draw the lines of responsibility more clearly. By doing this, we are confident that we will also create an environment where the provinces will be able to deal with these issues and give students a greater opportunity so they do not come out burdened by heavy student debt. I have always been troubled by the extraordinarily high student loan interest rates. They were almost punitive. A lot of assistance provided was provided at the back end when people graduated rather than at the front end.

Our government is looking at these are questions. We are looking at how we can improve the condition of students everywhere in Canada. We believe they represent a great human resource for the future and that is from where our economic growth will come.

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the member had told his government what he just said today. He identified exactly what we said when we recommended the need for a credentials recognition agency. We have to reach back into the immigration process in credentials recognition.

As for creating a new bureaucracy, if the member for Mississauga South understood how credentials recognition worked, it is done by a myriad of agencies in each province. Some have one, some have four, some have an unlimited number. Some are private sector, some are government run. By having one that has real authority and is tied back through the immigration system, we will have the ability to make a real difference.

When in government, the Liberal Party had an approach to dealing with credentials recognitions. Every month officials from about 13 different departments had a meeting. I do not know how many years this went on, but the Liberals were in power for 13 years. I do not know what they did. Certainly no policy was developed, no decisions were made and no solution was found.

As a result, thousands of new Canadians came here. They were told by the Liberal government that they should come to Canada because they had skills and education that were valued and needed here, that our economy needed doctors or engineers, whatever it was. When they arrived on our shores, they were told that we did not recognize their skills. We told them one thing in their home country, when we encouraged them to come here, and when they arrived we did not recognize those skills.

We will change that so new Canadians can achieve their aspirations, become contributing--

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in today's debate, because of course the Conservative Party has historically been the party of economic competitiveness and productivity in this country.

One can go back to the days of Sir John A. Macdonald who understood the importance of building the strong economic infrastructure necessary and put in place the policies that allowed that to happen so that Canada could become a strong growing economy. Of course in his time there was unprecedented growth in our economy. It is a tribute to the Conservative Party that it was able to, since its very inception, be the party of that kind of economic growth and prosperity.

In Ontario we saw the policies of Bill Davis who understood that the world was changing and that our education system needed to change. He introduced a system of community colleges that equipped us to meet the full needs of an economy, not just the very high end of post-secondary education, but a fuller range of skills and trades that needed to be accommodated. Those reforms were very forward looking and helped to make Ontario, and continue to keep Ontario, the economic engine of this country.

When this party was last in government, from 1984 to 1993, we again saw unprecedented response to the economic challenges in the world through the introduction of free trade, through the elimination of the manufacturers sales tax, and the introduction of replacement lower value added taxes to allow our manufacturing sector to compete. The result was that millions of jobs were created in the wake of that and Canada had an economic boom. In fact, whenever the time has come for forward looking economic competitiveness and productivity policy changes, it has been the Conservative Party that has provided those policies and those changes.

When we were in government last, the party opposite, the Liberal Party, opposed every one of those changes vigorously, dramatically, and with great theatre. Then once in power, it kept in place each one of those reforms. Why? Because they worked, because they were good for Canada, because they produced jobs, because they allowed us to be more economically competitive, because in fact they did herald an era of unprecedented prosperity.

After 13 years in which the Liberals simply cruised and did not respond to the economic changes, we see today the need for new changes. Those new changes and policies are coming again from the Conservative Party. It is not surprising. We are a party that values individual initiative. We are a party that values economic growth. We are a party that values personal achievement. When we talk about things like higher education, which allows one to achieve those personal aspirations, we probably have never seen a party where so many people around the Prime Minister come from that kind of academic background to understand intimately the value of higher education and what it can do and the opportunities it can create.

Certainly that has been the experience of my own family who came here as immigrants. It was simply by virtue of that human capital they themselves had through higher education before and here that allowed them to achieve prosperity and take advantage of the opportunities that Canada presented. That is why these things are terribly important.

We see in our budget 2006 once again a commitment to those kinds of forward looking economic policies. Budget 2006 included several new measures designed to help students and their families take advantage of higher education. There is an expansion in the eligibility of the Canada student loans program through a reduction in the parental contributions starting in August 2007. There is also the textbook tax credit, something which I think is tremendously important. As well there is an exemption of all post-secondary education scholarship and bursary income from taxation. It used to be okay if we won the lottery we did not have to pay taxes, but if we won a scholarship, we did. That just did not seem fair to us.

Access to post-secondary education also means improving the capacity of learning institutions to support he growing numbers of students. Our budget commits up to $1 billion through a post-secondary education infrastructure trust fund to enable provinces and territories to support urgent investments in post-secondary education.

These new measures are in addition to financial support for Canadian students that is already in place. Our budget will further enhance the Canada student loans program. It will provide welcome additional financial support to students and their families in financing the cost of post-secondary education.

Of course, important stakeholders, like the Association of Atlantic Universities, the Council of Ontario Universities, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada all welcomed these post-budget measures.

However, there is more than just post-secondary education. There is the fuller range of skills. One of our most important initiatives is that which recognizes the huge needs. Very serious problems emerged because of 13 years of inaction on the part of the Liberal government. One of those serious problems was the lack of skilled trades. We see this in Ontario. In my constituency of York—Simcoe construction is booming, yet qualified construction workers cannot be found. We see the same thing in Alberta and British Columbia.

We see in communities like mine and the greater Toronto area all kinds of immigrants who have come to our shores with education and skills that are not recognized. People do not have the opportunity to utilize their skills. These problems arose during the 13 years of the Liberal government. It failed to do anything to respond to the changing economy. We will do something about that.

On training, we have introduced bold new policies that will stand up for the trades. An apprenticeship incentive grant will create apprentice opportunities. If we talk to people, the problem is employers do not want to create apprentice opportunities. We depend on employers to do that, but it cost them too much money. It was not economically worthwhile and, as a result, young people were denied educational opportunities. We have introduced an apprentice incentive grant of $1,000 per year. This is a job creation tax credit to employers to create jobs. It will make it easier for them to do that.

The apprentice incentive grant is for the people choosing to enter a field of training as an apprentice. At the point in time, when one chooses to work at a grocery store, a fast food outlet or acquire further education and a skill, that $1,000 can make a huge difference in making that decision. This will help us meet the need to for skilled workers.

In addition, a new tools tax deduction will provide $500 for each individual who is in a skilled trade already, which will put them on a level playing ground with those who are self-employed.

These changes have been greeted by even the union movement. The Universal Workers Union, Local 183, said:

--this is a budget that not only recognizes the critical importance of infrastructure but also demonstrates an appreciation for the skilled working men and women who build our cities and communities.

It recognizes the value of it.

What about new Canadians who have come here with skills which are not recognized? We have introduced the concept of a credentials recognition agency, a national agency to put some heft behind it. Up until now credentials recognition had been handled by the provinces in a diverse, unfocused system that nobody recognized. Employers would look at the papers people brought from some credentials recognition agency, of which they had never heard, and would say that they did not believe the individuals had the skills or they would ask why they should believe that outfit.

By having a national credentials agency, we will put real weight and authority behind the credentials recognition. This will help doctors, engineers, people from all kinds of skills, even skilled trades, bricklayers and the like. This will provide a clear recognition that they have the skills and that they can be put to work right away and be placed in the economy immediately.

What we see in common in all of these policies is a philosophy, a philosophy that we do not enhance economic competitiveness through big state, big government solutions. Guys named Lenin, Stalin and Mao tried that. It does not work. This happened in highly educated societies, creating economic disasters.

The way to do this is by allowing people individual choice and freedom. All our policies give people the freedom and choice to enhance their post-secondary educations, to continue their educations, to acquire the best skills and to get the opportunities that Canada has to offer. It gives individuals the chance to choose to enter a skilled trade. We should not compel, or force or tell them to try to shape society in a big state way. Give people the freedoms and choices.

When people are given choices and opportunity to improve their conditions and their society, they respond to those challenges. We are creating an environment where they can do that. We continue to have challenges. The challenges include the need to remain competitive in a changing global environment. We have changing demographics at home. We will continue to have to respond to that. We have to continue to make our tax policy competitive. Only then will we have a truly competitive and productive economy that will benefit all Canadians and support the generous social programs that help everybody.

The key to it all is to enhance individual freedom, to give people the chance to take advantage of all the opportunities Canada has to offer. By taking advantage of that opportunity, it will help to build Canada, as millions of immigrants through the years have done, to make our country the great place it is today.

[June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we must set the record straight. The extension was only obtained after a new government in Canada intervened with the Americans and pressed the case and drew to their attention the problems that arose.

We pay great tribute to the broad private sector interests and municipal interests that have gathered to defend the tourism and financial interests that we have at stake.

We saw again today in the House of Commons in question period the anti-American smear from the Liberal Party members. Is it any wonder that during their time in government they were unable to even talk to the Americans about the problems proposed by this legislation? This legislation, and the WHTI initiative that flowed from it and which could have hurt Canada so much, went by without a single comment, public speech or letter from the Canadian government or our Liberal prime minister at the time. They could not communicate. They were actually more interested in picking fights with the Americans.

They oppose our resolution to the softwood lumber deal because it represents a constructive solution that works for Canadians. That is what we did on softwood lumber and that is what we are doing today on the western hemisphere travel initiative.

[June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the western hemisphere travel initiative is the American undertaking to require individuals entering or returning to the U.S. to show proof of citizenship or documentation, such as a passport, upon entering the country.

We have been very active in pressing the Americans on the need for mutually acceptable approaches to protecting security without harming tourism and trade. While our party has been extraordinarily active on this, the fact remains that we are in this position only because of the total and complete failure of the previous Liberal government to act when the law we are facing was actually being debated by Americans.

The intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act, which established the new requirements, was adopted in December 2004. Did the Liberal government make representation to any committee of the House of Representatives or Senate at that time? No, it was asleep at the switch. Did the Liberal Prime Minister or foreign affairs minister raise any concerns with their counterparts? No. Did the Liberal government make any written submission to promote and defend Canada's interests before the law became final? No.

The problem we face today is a direct result of the complete failure of the Liberal government of the day, to which the member for Thunder Bay--Rainy River belonged, to take any action or steps to protect Canada.

Later, when it came time to develop a detailed implementation plan for the law, the Liberal government continued to slumber. Only after the leader of the Conservative Party took the extraordinary step of writing, as an opposition leader, to the Americans did the Liberal government finally wake up, and what a feeble response.

On October 31, 2005 on the eve of an election called in Canada, on the very last possible day to comment on the proposed implementation measures, almost a year after the law was passed and well over a year after the law was first debated, Canada's then Liberal government finally submitted a formal comment to the Americans.

Unfortunately, that was of course too late to change the law that had long ago passed. The horse had left the barn when the Liberals were asleep on the job, or perhaps just too busy calling the Americans names to actually do something to protect Canadian interests. All we can do now is try to clean up a terrible situation left to us by the Liberals and try to influence the detailed implementation of the initiative.

Our Prime Minister and government have been hard at work. In just 100 days, we have done more than the previous government did in years to stand up for Canada's interests.

First, the Prime Minister secured the President's recognition of the urgency of Canada's concerns on the WHTI during their first meeting. They tasked Canada's security minister and U.S. Secretary Michael Chertoff with making the WHTI work for both countries. The minister and secretary met on April 18 and Canada recommended alternative requirements which might meet the intent of the U.S. law. We invited the secretary to visit Ottawa this spring for further discussions. In Washington on April 13, our foreign minister pressed Canada's concerns with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Our efforts are paying off. Already a number of positive developments signal greater flexibility by the U.S. administration and Congress. On May 22, President Bush contrasted the significant differences between the southern and northern borders. The President said that it was his intention that any cross-border ID card should be compatible with Canadian needs and not be restrictive.

On May 25, the U.S. Senate passed the immigration reform bill, including two amendments delaying the final implementation of the WHTI to June 1, 2009. One of those amendments provides for economic studies to evaluate the impact of the WHTI and a substantial section on reciprocity with Canada, enabling the Secretary of State to accept provincial documents as valid ID to enter the U.S.

We are making progress but there is no guarantee, unlike what the member thinks, that these amendments will find their way into the final law. The House of Representatives must still pass its own version of the highly sensitive immigration reform act.

Our two governments will continue discussions this spring and our embassy in Washington is continuing its vigorous advocacy on this issue. Unlike the previous Liberal government, of which the member of Parliament for Thunder Bay--Rainy River was a member, we are not asleep at the switch. We are active, engaged and making progress in digging Canada out of the hole the Liberals left us in on this essential issue that is so important to our economy.