Rick Dykstra

[Business of Supply, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I serve on the justice committee together. I have to say I respect the work that he does there. He is hard working. He knows his place. He knows what he needs to do there. He deals with the facts on a reasonable basis. Let me compliment him on that.

The fact is we are not talking about justice here. We are talking about finance and we are talking about commitment. The plain fact of the matter is: square box, put it in, and what came out was a broken promise. There is nothing more that can be said about it. They cannot correct the record. All they can do is say that yes, they broke their promise. That is all they can do.

[Business of Supply, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, if I had the opportunity I would stay here the rest of the week and over the weekend to debate with the member for Scarborough Centre about his broken promise, his party's broken promise. He admitted it right here in the House. He said, “We didn't keep it. We didn't do it. We didn't get it done”.

This is my favourite day in the House since I have been here. He called me a large-mouthed bass and I took the bait. Sir, through you, Mr. Speaker, this was fishing at its best. Those who host fishing shows on TSN would be proud to watch what the member for Scarborough Centre did today when he admitted to Canadians and the House of Commons that the Liberals did not do what they said they were going to do with the GST. I am proud the member finally had the nerve, on behalf of his party, to stand and say it.

[Business of Supply, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my speech follows up on the excellent speech by the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, but I do want to respond to something. I was challenged earlier by the member for Scarborough Centre to come up with where specifically in the red book it said that the GST would be scrapped. He will be happy to hear that on page 22 of the red book of 1993, the quote that the Liberals will scrap, kill and abolish the GST is:

A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers and to small business, minimizes disruption to small business, and promotes federal-provincial fiscal cooperation and harmonization.

It is on the record. The member for Scarborough Centre challenged me. I think I am up to the challenge, so we will see if the member for Scarborough Centre is prepared, based on the fact that it is in the red book, to step down from his seat and run again like he said he would. I am looking forward to it.

I would like also to focus my remarks on the portion of today's motion dealing with the deeply flawed Liberal alternative to the government's tax fairness plan, an alternative aptly described by Finn Poschmann of the C.D. Howe Institute as politically funky stew, and elaborate on the extensive tax relief our government has provided to Canadians.

The chief deficiency with the Liberals' alternative plan is that it completely fails to level the playing field between income trusts and corporations. The Liberals would completely ignore the tax revenue losses experienced by the federal and provincial governments, nor would they remove the tax incentive for business and investors to choose the income trust structure over corporate structure.

On October 31, 2006 Canada's new government announced its tax fairness plan. Unlike this motion, it will restore balance and fairness to the federal tax system by creating a level playing field between income trusts and corporations and also deliver over $1 billion of new tax relief annually for Canadians, especially our seniors.

Included in the measures in the tax fairness plan is a distribution tax on distributions from publicly traded income trusts and limited partnerships. Distributions of existing income trusts will not be affected, I repeat, not be affected, by this tax for four years. Also included is a reduction of one-half percentage point in the general corporate income tax rate as of January 2011. At that point in time, the federal general corporate income tax rate will be 18.5%, which makes us the third lowest in the G-7. There is an increase in the age credit amount by $1,000, from $4,066 to $5,066, effective January 1, 2006. The $1,000 increase in the age credit amount will provide tax relief to low and middle income seniors.

For many, pension splitting beginning in 2007 is also in the plan. The pension income splitting measures will allow residents who receive income that qualifies for the pension income tax credit to allocate up to one-half of that income to their spouse or common law partner, thereby significantly reducing the tax on that income. The pension income splitting measure is a move that will directly benefit many of the 20,000 seniors in my riding of St. Catharines, and will benefit thousands more across the country.

The government is committed to tax fairness in this country. It is only right that businesses and individuals in Canada each pay their fair share of tax.

Had the government not acted on the income trust issue, the tax burden would have been unfairly shifted on to the backs of hard-working individuals and families in our country. Our government could not stand by and watch this happen. Ordinary taxpayers needed to be protected. That is why we acted.

Informed opinion from coast to coast has been overwhelmingly in our favour. The federal Daily Gleaner said, “It was the decision we think that will benefit Canadians in the long run”. The Montreal Gazette called it sound public policy, noting that unlike the former Liberal government, we had the discipline to avoid public dithering. The Toronto Star said that the finance minister deserves much credit for doing the right thing by plugging a tax avoidance loophole that he rightly described as a very bad thing for Canada. The Winnipeg Sun said that the Conservative government acted in the best interest of the economy going forward.

Even the Liberal finance critic, the member for Markham—Unionville, said at the time that it was absolutely the right thing to do, to ensure tax fairness and to work for Canada's productivity.

Unlike the Liberal leader, most Canadians clearly get it. In order for Canada to compete and be a leader in the 21st century, we must have a fair and neutral tax system in which all individuals and businesses pay their fair share.

Canada's new government demonstrated its commitment to tax fairness in this country in its most recent budget. The 2007 budget invests in things that make Canada great and reflect the values and beliefs that define us as a nation.

The government is taking important steps to clean up our environment, invest in Canadians, improve our health care system and celebrate our culture.

Canada's new government came into power believing strongly that Canadians pay too much tax. That is why in budget 2007 our government took steps to reduce the tax burden on Canadians and provide over $7 billion in tax relief over the next two fiscal years.

The tax relief provided in budget 2007 builds on the already significant tax relief that the government provided in budget 2006 in which 29 tax reductions amounting to almost $20 billion over two years were made. Budget 2006 provided more tax relief than four previous federal budgets combined.

Canada's new government has also introduced advantage Canada. A key element of the plan is to provide a tax back guarantee to Canadians by dedicating all interest savings from reducing the federal debt to personal income tax reductions. It means that every dollar saved from lower interest payments will be returned to Canadians through personal income tax reductions.

Over the next two fiscal years this will mean $2.4 billion in tax relief. It is made possible by lowering our national mortgage by over $22 billion since being elected, debt reduction that works out to more than $700 per Canadian. After all, why should Canadians not benefit directly from living in the only G-7 nation with a balanced budget?

Here are a few examples of how the government is acting to help hard-working Canadians and businesses:

We are introducing a $2,000 per child tax credit that will help families get ahead. For a typical family with two children, it will mean up to $620 in tax savings. This tax credit will help alleviate some of the necessary expenses incurred by Canadian families in raising children.

We are increasing the spousal and other amounts to provide up to $209 of tax relief for a spouse or a single taxpayer supporting a dependent child or relative. We are giving all families the opportunity to enjoy the dignity that comes with having a job and the pride of independence through the working income tax benefit. It will reward and strengthen incentives to work for more than 1.2 million low income Canadians. The maximum benefit is $500 for individuals and $1,000 for families.

We are reducing the federal paper burden for business by 20% by November 2008, by reducing the number of annual tax filings and remittances by over 350,000 small businesses. We are recognizing that businesses need modern technology to be more efficient and buildings that allow them to grow. That is why we proposed changes to the capital cost allowance system that will shorten the writeoff period for computers and non-residential buildings.

Budget 2007 also contains a detailed plan creating a Canadian advantage in global capital markets that will create a stronger and more efficient capital market in our country. The plan will give enterprises of all sizes better access to capital at more competitive costs, provide investors with increased investment choices and create more highly skilled, well paying jobs.

Canada certainly recognizes that attracting investment is as basic to building a strong economy as reducing government debt, lowering taxes and maintaining low, stable and predictable inflation.

Make no mistake that the decision that was taken on October 31 is all about fairness. It is about fairness to Canadian taxpayers and their families who would have been asked to pay more and more. It is about fairness within the corporate sector by removing the tax distortion in favour of income trusts relative to corporations. It is about fairness for all Canadian governments, federal and provincial, by preventing a significant loss of tax revenue.

In summary, it was clear that income trusts had special tax advantages that regular business corporations did not. Although the decision to act on this income trust issue was not an easy one, it was absolutely necessary for the country and for the future generations of Canadians, our children and our grandchildren.

[Business of Supply, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, if this were the old wild, wild west and the member for Scarborough Centre were a gunslinger, I would not belly up to any saloon and have a drink with him because of the way he shot around and spoke about the breaking of commitments.

It is not too difficult for the member to turn around and look back at the record of his government for 13 years, of broken commitments, starting with the GST in 1993. I guess I could take up a whole lot of time to talk about it, but I want to get at a couple of questions.

The first is on employment insurance and small business. The member spoke about the importance of and the need to deliver for business in our country. At the same time, there is private member's bill after private member's bill from that party supporting an increase on small business of the cost of employment insurance, without regard for anything more than trying to ensure that these small businesses can employ folks. I would love to get his comments on why he supports those private members' bills.

Also, I want to remind the remember that as a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, we travelled all across the country with respect to consultation. In fact, there were 450 presentations from every sector, from business, from the private sector, from individuals, from non-governmental organizations.

Members of his party participated on the finance committee. How can he stand in his place and say that consultations did not take place?

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

First, the member is using a prop in the House. Second, he is not even speaking to the topic that he originally started out with respect to his speech, and third, he never even answered--

[Green Party Leader, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Green Party leader Elizabeth May has still not completely backed down from her comparisons of Canadian public policy to Chamberlain's appeasement, nor has the Leader of the Opposition withdrawn his support for her candidacy.

Last night on CBC's The National, Rex Murphy challenged Ms. May's comparisons and said:

There are a number of problems with injecting the Holocaust or its shadow into the current political debate on global warming and the separate debate on what to do about it.

Ms. May continues to qualify her remarks and offer only half apologies. She should have made an immediate, clear and unequivocal retraction.

The opposition leader has staked a lot on Ms. May. He has even disenfranchised Liberals of Central Nova to help get her elected to Parliament.

Miss May has refused to completely retract her remarks. Will the Leader of the Opposition finally withdraw his support for his candidate in Central Nova?

[International Workers' Day, May 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today, May 1, is International Workers' Day, known as Labour Day in many countries around the world, a day celebrated to recognize the achievements and struggles of working people and their families.

We are committed to a more productive, safer and healthy workplace. Together we must work toward more responsive workplaces for the evolving needs of workers and employees in the 21st century.

As this day follows closely after the National Day of Mourning, I encourage employees and employers to be careful and attentive in the workplace.

Recently in my hometown of St. Catharines, an accident at the Port Weller dry docks took the life of crane operator Mike Damiano, a good man who is now mourned by his family and his friends.

It is our personal and collective responsibility to take the time to stop and solve dangerous situations in the workplace.

International Workers' Day acknowledges the contribution that workers make to improving not only Canada's economy but our society.

Together we are building a workforce for the future that embraces all citizens and maintains Canada's high standards of living in today's global economy.

[Criminal Code, April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot take an approach to justice that is a revolving door. If we do that, then we will treat our justice system like the polls, which go forward and backward in the country.

What somebody believes or thinks one day and what somebody does not think another day, proven by statistics, if that is how we will be running government, then we are in a whole bigger problem than what the member likes to think or wants to suggest. We need to solve problems and we do that through legislation.

The legislation is good and it is sound. It is supported by a majority of members in the House, and most important, it is supported by Canadians.

I understand the hon. member's passion and commitment. However, at the same time, we cannot say on the one hand that we are for something, an election commitment, and then after try to use statistics on this issue to argue why we are against it.

If the member thinks about this a bit, he will understand that the right thing to do is stand up in the House and support Bill C-10.

[Criminal Code, April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, from the outset, if we make a commitment in a platform and we go across the country committing to Canadians that we will do something, that is not ideology. That is being honest and fair and doing what is right.

At committee, witnesses delivered messages from one side and from the other side. I acknowledge that, yes, I am new to the justice committee, but I am not new to what has happened in the country with respect to the lack of justice.

The important part to keep in mind is that we heard from both sides, but what we all agree on, certainly the NDP and the Conservative government agree on, is we need to take a strong stand on issues of gun violence.

You may say that you want to do it, but you have not taken any step—

[Criminal Code, April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will make a few brief remarks and I will separate them into three areas. First, I will propose amendments to Bill C-10 that will reflect the government's willingness to accommodate specific concerns, while at the same time keep our election commitment to Canadians and make our streets safer by cracking down on gun crime. Second, I would like to restate the underlying purpose of what Bill C-10 was all about. Finally, for the purpose of informing Canadians, I would like to briefly discuss the events at committee where the majority of the clauses of this bill were deleted.

Let me start by saying that the government has agreed to amend the bill by targeting a core of key offences, those of great concern. Therefore, motions to restore certain clauses of the bill have been proposed. They deal with four serious non-use offences, namely, firearm trafficking; possession for the purposes of trafficking; smuggling; and the illegal possession of restricted or prohibited firearms with ammunition. They also deal with nine offences that involve the actual use of a firearm.

In addition, I would like to take a moment to discuss the amendments moved earlier by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. Motions were moved to amend clause 1, clause 2 and clauses 17 through 24 of the bill. Except for the amendment to clause 1, all of these amendments seek to remove the third tier minimum penalties.

For clauses 17 to 24, which deal with eight serious offences in which a firearm is used in the commission of an offence, the government is prepared to remove the 10 year minimum penalty that has been proposed, leaving a five year minimum penalty on a first offence, and seven years on a second offence or a subsequent offence.

For clause 2, which deals with section 85 of the Criminal Code, the separate offence of having used a firearm or an imitation firearm in the commission of other indictable offences, the government seeks to remove the five year minimum penalty that is proposed, leaving a one year minimum penalty on a first offence and a three year minimum penalty on a second or subsequent offence.

The amendment to clause 1 relates to other clauses in the bill, namely clauses 2, 7, 10, 11 and 13. It is a consequential amendment that should the clauses I just referred to pass, then clause 1 should be amended as proposed by the motion.

With these additional amendments, I would submit that Bill C-10 would be both appropriately tailored and measured, and therefore should be adopted by this House. I would urge all members to support the bill which will give police and prosecutors what they have said they need to tackle this serious problem.

Moving on to the second issue to which I wanted to speak, Bill C-10 addresses a very important public safety concern, the threat of gun crimes. This bill aims to ensure that the Criminal Code sets out firm penalties for serious or repeat firearm offences.

It is important to note that Bill C-10 targets gangs and it targets the criminal enterprises that threaten our neighbourhoods and our communities through intimidation and violence.

The factors that trigger the toughest sentences in Bill C-10 are limited to those who are linked to criminal organizations, or the use of restricted or prohibited firearms which are the signature tools of gangs and organized crime. This bill seeks to establish escalating mandatory minimum sentences of five years for the first offence and seven years for the second offence and offences thereafter.

I would like to read the list of offences into the record so that this House can truly understand the intent of this legislation: attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery and extortion. These are very serious crimes. During the last election our party committed to raise the mandatory minimum sentences for violent gun crimes and so did the Liberal Party and the NDP.

The Liberals promised to toughen sentences for firearm offences. Let me read a few lines from an election platform. This platform said that they would reintroduce legislation to crack down on violent crimes and gang violence and double the mandatory minimum sentences for serious gun related crimes. I probably do not have to tell the House that the platform was a Liberal platform.

I am pleased the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh and his party are in part honouring their election commitment and have worked cooperatively with the government to amend Bill C-10 in a manner that is not what we originally wanted, but it is effective and it does reflect in a positive way our campaign commitments.

The protection of our citizens from preventable harm is a responsibility of the government and it supercedes all politics.

Bill C-10 is being reported back to the House from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights although it looks nothing like the original bill, which was approved by the majority of the House prior to being sent to committee for consideration. It is very important that I take a moment to discuss what happened to Bill C-10 in committee.

As I mentioned a moment ago, Bill C-10 seeks to increase the minimum penalty for gun crimes. However, the bill, as amended by committee, is left with no increase or new minimum penalties whatsoever.

At committee the Bloc members ideologically stated from the outset that they were opposed to the concept of mandatory minimum sentences. If we act ideologically, it makes it very difficult when action requires pragmatism, not ideology.

The position of the Liberal members on the other hand was much harder to comprehend. Even though they promised in the last election to double mandatory minimum penalties for serious gun crimes, it did not happen at committee. The Liberal members stated their opposition to mandatory minimum sentences, decrying the lack of statistical evidence to prove their effectiveness in reducing crime.

They then proceeded to introduce amendments that sought to increase the mandatory minimum sentences on a number of non-use or possession offences, while opposing their campaign promise to increase the mandatory minimum sentences on the violent crimes, which I listed previously. This action clearly illustrates that the opposition and its priority on criminal justice matters support only initiatives from which one can gain political mileage. Once again Liberal politics trumped public interest.

The committee heard from numerous witnesses who had divergent opinions. Many questioned the effectiveness of minimum penalties. The government believes it is a matter of perspective. Bill C-10 does not seek to address the overall criminal justice system. Nor does it seek to address the societal factors that contribute to crime. Bill C-10 is a pragmatic response to the specific problem of gun crimes perpetrated by gangs and organized crime. It is fair, it is focused and it is firm in its resolve to make our streets safer.

This type of focus was woefully lacking from the Leader of the Opposition's press conference where he announced his sudden conversion to law and order by stating his steadfast opposition to stiffer sentences for violent criminals. It is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition did not heed the advice from an attorney general in the country whose commentary on federal Liberal justice policies were recently quoted in the Globe and Mail. I just happen to have a few excerpts with me. He said:

—the Liberals have very little substance to offer by way of alternative, and certainly nothing new or effective....The typical federal Liberal approach to crime, in a word, is a boomer approach that is stuck in the summer of love....focus on prevention alone does nothing for those families in crime-ridden high rises where illegal guns police the hallways...

He went on to say:

We need to take a close look at strong statutory measures, including reverse-onus clauses and mandatory minimums.

Michael Bryant, the Liberal attorney general in the province of Ontario said that.

The government has acknowledged that tougher laws, such as those proposed in Bill C-10, are only part of the solution to this complex problem, but it is consistent with the Criminal Code and sentencing principles as a whole, and is not merely focused on the goal of general deterrence.

In light of this, the government demonstrated its willingness to examine how Bill C-10 could be amended in a manner that would be accepted by the majority of parliamentarians but, more important, to a majority of Canadians.