Mr. Moore (Fundy--Royal), seconded by Mr. Comartin, moved an amendment to Motion No. 11. Shall I dispense?
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 48% of the vote.
Criminal Code April 30th, 2007
Mr. Moore (Fundy--Royal), seconded by Mr. Comartin, moved an amendment to Motion No. 11. Shall I dispense?
Criminal Code April 30th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, for those listening to my riveting speech, I do not know whether to start over because thanks to the intervention by the member for Miramichi I am not sure exactly where I was. I will go back to subparagraph (ii).
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;
(b) by substituting, in the English version, the following for the portion of subsection 239(2) before paragraph (a) contained in that Motion:
(2) In determining for the purpose of paragraph (1)(a), whether a convicted person has committed a second or subsequent offence, if the person was earlier convicted of any of the following offences, that offence is to be considered as an earlier offence:
I move, seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh:
That Motion 10 proposing to restore clause 18 of Bill C-10 be amended
(a) by substituting the following for subparagraphs 244(2)(a) (ii) and (iii) contained in that Motion:
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years; and
(b) by substituting, in the English version, the following for the portion of subsection 244(3) before paragraph (a) contained in that Motion:
(3) In determining, for the purpose of paragraph (2)(a), whether a convicted person has committed a second or subsequent offence, if the person was earlier convicted of any of the following offences, that offence is to be considered as an earlier offence:
I move, seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh:
That Motion 11 proposing to restore Clause 19 of Bill C-10 be amended
(a) by substituting the following for subparagraphs 272(2)(a) (ii) and (iii) contained in that Motion:
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;
(b) by substituting, in the English version, the following for the portion of subsection 272(3) before paragraph (a) contained in that Motion:
(3) In determining, for the purpose of paragraph 2(a), whether a convicted person has committed a second or subsequent offence, if the person was earlier convicted of any of the following offences, that offence is to be considered as an earlier offence:
I move, seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh:
That Motion 12 proposing to restore Clause 20 of Bill C-10 be amended
(a) by substituting the following for subparagraph 273(2)(a) (ii) and (iii) contained in that Motion:
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;
(b) by substituting, in the English version, the following for the portion of subsection 273(3) before paragraph (a) contained in that Motion:
(3) In determining, for the purpose of paragraph (2)(a), whether a convicted person has committed a second or subsequent offence, if the person was earlier convicted of any of the following offences, that offence is to be considered as an earlier offence:
I move, seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh:
That Motion 13 proposing to restore Clause 21 of Bill C-10 be amended
(a) by substituting the following for subparagraphs 279(1.1)(a) (ii) and (iii) contained in that Motion:
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;
(b) by substituting, in the English version, the following for the portion of subsection 239(1.2) before paragraph (a) contained in that Motion:
(1.2) In determining, for the purpose of paragraph (1.1)(a), whether a convicted person has committed a second or subsequent offence, if the person was earlier convicted of any of the following offences, that offence is to be considered as an earlier offence:
I move, seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh:
That Motion 14 proposing to restore Clause 22 of Bill C-10 be amended
(a) by substituting the following for subparagraphs 279.1(2)(a) (ii) and (iii) contained in that Motion:
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;
(b) by substituting, in the English version, the following for the portion of subsection 279.1(2.1) before paragraph (a) contained in that Motion:
(2.1) In determining, for the purpose of paragraph (2)(a), whether a convicted person has committed a second or subsequent offence, if the person was earlier convicted of any of the following offences, that offence is to be considered as an earlier offence:
I move, seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh:
That Motion 15 proposing to restore Clause 23 of Bill C-10 be amended
(a) by substituting the following for subparagraphs 344(1)(a) (ii) and (iii) contained in that Motion:
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;
(b) by substituting, in the English version, the following for the portion of subsection 344(2) before paragraph (a) contained in that Motion:
(2) In determining, for the purpose of paragraph (1)(a), whether a convicted person has committed a second or subsequent offence, if the person was earlier convicted of any of the following offences, that offence is to be considered as an earlier offence:
I move, seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh:
That Motion 16 proposing to restore Clause 24 of Bill C-10 be amended
(a) by substituting the following for paragraphs 346(1.1)(a) (ii) and (iii) contained in that Motion:
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years:
(b) by substituting, in the English version, the following for the portion of subsection 346(1.2) before paragraph (a) contained in that Motion:
(1.2) In determining, for the purpose of paragraph (1.1)(a), whether a convicted person has committed a second or subsequent office, if the person was earlier convicted of any of the following offences, that offence is to be considered as an earlier offence:
Criminal Code April 30th, 2007
, seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, moved:
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-10 be amended by restoring Clause 26 as follows:
“26. Subparagraph (a)(ix) of the definition “primary designated offence” in section 487.04 of the Act is replaced by the following:
(ix) section 244 (discharging firearm with intent),”
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-10 be amended by restoring Clause 27 as follows:
“27. Subparagraph (a)(xviii) of the definition “designated offence” in subsection 490.011(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(xviii) paragraph 273(2)(a) (aggravated sexual assault — use of a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm or any firearm in connection with criminal organization),
(xviii.1) paragraph 273(2)(a.1) (aggravated sexual assault — use of a firearm),”
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-10 be amended by restoring Clause 29 as follows:
“29. Paragraph 1(r) of Schedule I to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act is replaced by the following:
(r) section 244 (discharging firearm with intent);”
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-10 be amended by restoring Clause 30 as follows:
“30. (1) If subsection 1(5) of An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act, being chapter 25 of the Statutes of Canada, 2005, (in this section, the “other Act”) comes into force before section 26 of this Act, section 26 of this Act is replaced by the following:
26. Subparagraph (a.1)(v) of the definition “primary designated offence” in section 487.04 of the Act is replaced by the following:
(v) section 244 (discharging firearm with intent),
(2) If section 26 of this Act comes into force before subsection 1(5) of the other Act, subparagraph (a.1)(v) of the definition “primary designated offence” in section 487.04 of the Criminal Code, as enacted by that subsection 1(5), is replaced by the following:
(v) section 244 (discharging firearm with intent),
(3) If subsection 1(5) of the other Act and section 26 of this Act come into force on the same day, subsection 1(5) of the other Act is deemed to have come into force before section 26 of this Act and subsection (1) applies.”
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Motions Nos. 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 as moved by the Minister of Justice.
Bill C-10 addresses a very important public safety concern, the threat of gun crimes. The bill aims to ensure that the Criminal Code sets appropriately tough penalties for serious or repeat firearm offences.
The aggravating factors that trigger the toughest sentences in the bill are limited to those linked to gangs and criminal organizations or those who use restricted or prohibited firearms. These crimes include 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 penalty for violent gun crimes, as did the Liberals and the NDP.
I am pleased that the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh and his party are honouring their election commitment and have worked cooperatively with the government to amend Bill C-10 in a manner that is effective and reflective of our campaign commitments.
After discussion with the opposition, the government has agreed to reduce the scope of the bill by targeting a core of key offences, those of greatest concern. Therefore, I will proceed to move amendments to those motions that reflect the compromises reached with the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh.
Time does not permit me to fully explain these amendments, however, my colleagues will do so later in the debate.
I move, seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh:
That Motion 3, proposing to restore Clause 1 of Bill C-10 be amended by substituting the following for the portion of subsection 84(5) before paragraph (a) contained in the Motion:
(5) In determining, for the purposes of any of subsections 85(3), 95(2), 99(2), 100(2) and 103(2), whether a convicted person has committed a second or subsequent offence, if the person was earlier convicted of any of the following offences, that offence is to be considered as an earlier offence.
I move, seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh:
That Motion 4 proposing to restore Clause 2 of Bill C-10 be amended by substituting the following for paragraphs 85(3)(b) and (c) contained in that Motion:
(b) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years.
I move, seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh:
That Motion 9 proposing to restore Clause 17 of Bill C-10 be amended
(a) by substituting the following for subparagraphs 239(1)(a)(ii) and (iii) contained in that Motion:
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;
(b) by substituting, in the English version, the following for the portion of subsection 239(2) before paragraph (a) contained in that Motion:
(2) In determining, for the purpose of paragraph (1)(a), whether a convicted person has committed a second or subsequent offence—
Criminal Code April 30th, 2007
, seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-10 be amended by restoring Clause 7 as follows:
“7. (1) The portion of subsection 95(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the followin
95. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who, in any place, possesses a loaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, or an unloaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm together with readily accessible ammunition that is capable of being discharged in the firearm, unless the person is the holder of
(2) Paragraph 95(2)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
(i) in the case of a first offence, three years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, five years; or”
Pursuant to Standing Order 76(2), notice also received from:
The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada — March 15, 2007
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-10 be amended by restoring Clause 10 as follows:
“10. Subsection 99(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) where the object in question is a firearm, a prohibited device, any ammunition or any prohibited ammunition is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
(a) in the case of a first offence, three years; and
(b) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, five years.
(3) In any other case, a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.”
Pursuant to Standing Order 76(2), notice also received from:
The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada — March 15, 2007
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-10 be amended by restoring Clause 11 as follows:
“11. Subsection 100(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) by possessing a firearm, a prohibited device, any ammunition or any prohibited ammunition is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
(a) in the case of a first offence, three years; and
(b) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, five years.
(3) In any other case, a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.”
Pursuant to Standing Order 76(2), notice also received from:
The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada — March 15, 2007
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-10 be amended by restoring Clause 13 as follows:
“13. Subsection 103(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) where the object in question is a firearm, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
(a) in the case of a first offence, three years; and
(b) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, five years.
(2.1) In any other case, a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.”
Pursuant to Standing Order 76(2), notice also received from:
The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada — March 15, 2007
Criminal Code April 30th, 2007
seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-10 be amended by restoring the long title as follows:
“An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum penalties for offences involving firearms) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act”
Pursuant to Standing Order 76(2), notice also received from:
The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada — March 15, 2007
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-10 be amended by restoring the Preamble as follows:
“WHEREAS Canadians are entitled to live their lives in peace, freedom and security;
WHEREAS acts of violence involving the use of firearms, including ones by street gangs, are increasingly threatening the safety of Canadians in their communities;
WHEREAS the Parliament of Canada is committed to taking measures to protect Canadians from this threat while continuing to respect and promote the values reflected in, and the rights and freedoms guaranteed by, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
AND WHEREAS these measures include legislation to impose higher minimum penalties on those who commit serious or repeat offences involving firearms;”
Pursuant to Standing Order 76(2), notice also received from:
The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada — March 15, 2007
Criminal Code April 30th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, Bill C-48, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code in order to implement the United Nations Convention against Corruption, shall be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed.
Committees of the House April 20th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's remarks. I know that she has been a longstanding member of the justice committee, but I also listened to the evidence of the witness that she was citing, the youth worker from Montreal, and he had some powerful testimony for our committee.
I noticed that the hon. member, although citing some of the things that the witness said, left out the fact that that witness appeared at our justice committee to support a bill that the hon. member opposes.
Here is someone who works with youth, who works in an environment where there are a lot of gangs. We heard his evidence about recruitment into gangs and the kids wearing the red or blue bandanas. He provided such powerful testimony, but he said we should support what the government was doing with our justice bills, our bills to get tough on crime.
I find it most interesting that the hon. member left that out of her remarks when she was talking on this issue. She left out the fact that this person was supporting a government bill that she opposes, so I would ask that she comment on that if she gets an opportunity.
The motion today speaks to the importance of the contribution that ethnocultural communities make to the prevention of crime, social reintegration of offenders, and rapid growth of safer communities. It asks the House to recognize the need to ensure every means and resource to allow police departments, Correctional Service Canada, the National Parole Board, and the ethnocultural communities to respond better to the new needs of the increasingly diversified offender and prisoner population.
In this regard, I wish to recognize the importance of the contribution of ethnocultural communities in a specific context, namely, in helping to ensure the national security of Canada in a manner that respects the fundamental rights of all Canadians.
In this regard, I wish to single out especially the work of the cross-cultural round table on security. The recent report that reviewed the Anti-terrorism Act from the other place discussed the cross-cultural round table on security and made recommendations to improve its effectiveness. The government is currently considering this report.
It is not my intention to discuss the Senate's recommendation at this time. My purpose today is to summarize the work of the round table members to date as an important example of how members of ethnocultural communities can contribute to a Canada that is safer because it takes action against wrongdoers, in this case terrorists, while respecting fundamental human rights.
The cross-cultural round table on security was established in February 2005. Its mandate is to engage Canadians and the Government of Canada in an ongoing dialogue on national security. The round table meets periodically with the Ministers of Public Safety, Justice and Canadian Heritage, as well as other ministers and security officials, to discuss national security matters. I had the privilege last year of attending the national round table and it was a very rewarding experience indeed.
To date, six formal meetings of the round table with senior government officials and, as mentioned above, periodically with ministers, have been held. During the last two years of operation, round table members have helped inform policy and decision-making by providing insights on security issues.
The cross-cultural round table on security has brought together 15 individuals, all volunteers I should add, from diverse ethnocultural and religious communities from across the country. While they may come from different backgrounds and different cultures, it is their commitment to human rights, to strong and safe communities, and to protecting Canada and Canadians from harm that unites them as a round table.
The diversity within its membership and the spectrum of opinions reflect the diversity and concerns of Canada's citizens. The round table is part of a pluralistic process of consultation, collaboration and learning. This is a different model from those created in Europe and Australia, which focus solely on the Muslim community. Instead, the round table is a multicultural model, which rejects the stigmatization of any one community.
Since the round table's inception, initiatives such as the Canada Border Service Agency's fairness initiative and the RCMP's bias-free policing policy have signalled the commitment of federal agencies to ensure that the Canadian values that we respect so much are reflected in the way government officials perform their everyday duties.
The agenda that the round table members adopted for 2005-06 covered many diverse facets of national security concerns and brought many new perspectives to the understanding by all participants of the important security issues and the impact of national security measures on Canadians.
The first year the round table allowed round table members to really appreciate the multicultural nature of the round table as they did not shy away from discussing difficult issues regarding national security that often involved debates around foreign policy and religious issues.
Round table members have also facilitated numerous meetings between government and local community groups to ensure that a two-way dialogue takes place, explaining what security measures have been enacted, why and what is being done to protect all Canadians.
Equally important has been the information exchange, the listening to those who may feel there is a disproportionate impact on them from some of these measures.
Based on feedback from round table members, security agencies are reassessing how they should interact with diverse communities, with a long term view to establishing sustained and effective relationships.
More broadly, federal government departments, including the Department of Justice and Public Safety, are also re-examining how they engage in outreach activities to Canadians on national security issues. Through their own outreach, round table members have recognized the need to build trust and understanding among Canada's diverse communities and the security agencies toward the common goal, the goal that we all share, of enhanced security.
Moving forward into 2006, the round table, through a series of community outreach activities, locally, regionally and nationally, focused on achieving strategic results in four main areas. First, beyond the government's efforts to protect its citizens, Canada's overall security depends on the responsibility and attitude of all Canadians and their desire and ability to work together to protect our communities.
Round table members recognized the need to develop and reinforce the concept of responsible citizens and underlined the responsibilities associated with being part of Canadian society, including the necessary commitment to the security of their own communities.
Round table members wish to advise government on the potential role and responsibilities of all members of Canadian society including, very importantly, youth in the security of Canada. This would also include how the government itself could support its people in this role and relationship.
Second, the London bombings which took place in July 2005 raised the notion, disturbing to all round table members, of second or third generation Canadians, born in an open and democratic society, adopting violent solutions such as suicide bombings as a means of protesting government actions.
There is no reason to believe that Canadians are immune from the conditions that led to these events. This is not an issue unique to the United Kingdom. Round table members recognized the need to better understand these concerns domestically and to dialogue with communities about understanding the conditions that could potentially lead to the adoption of extremist views and the commitment of terrorist acts or hate crimes by Canadians, particularly youth, at home or abroad.
They also recognized the need to discuss potential effective interventions to prevent such tragedies from occurring within our own borders.
Third, round table members will continue to facilitate a two-way communication regarding the implementation of Canadian government security measures and their impact on ethnocultural communities and individual members as best they can and they will continue to carry on promoting intercultural dialogue within the respective communities on local issues and concerns related to national security.
Lastly, in the event of a terrorist act in Canada or an act directed against Canadians, round table members recognized the need to be concerned with the possibility and even likelihood of community backlash and hate crimes against members of Canada's communities.
By talking with communities, strategies to deal with this scenario could be examined and developed. These would aim to strengthen community relations and mobilize communities, cultural businesses and youth groups in an effort to mitigate the fallout of a terrorist attack in Canada.
As I explained previously, the great strength of the round table lies in its multicultural makeup. Being a country with a strong sense of multiculturalism, Canada has developed and will continue to build a solid capacity for dialogue and expression in diverse communities.
In today's complex security environment, intelligence and law enforcement agencies must work with community groups to be effective. Within a multicultural country such as Canada, each round table member brings something unique to the table, and those are the diverse Canadian communities they come from. Concerns about security measures do not come from just one community or one religion. The round table, either through the rotation of new members or through its outreach activities, will seek out as many of these perspectives as possible. It is hoped that any and all impacts of this dialogue will help move Canada forward.
I will give an example. At the outreach meeting held in Calgary on March 18, 2006, the members of the security agencies had the opportunity to present to the audience the nature of the work undertaken by them and the challenge they face in this regard. Thereafter, they participated in a question and answer session. Not surprising, the audience brought up issues such as racial profiling, security certificates and the possible abuse of power by the authorities. According to the report of the round table member who organized this outreach activity, it stated:
It was heartening to see members of the security agencies explain to what extent they strive to prevent such abuses and invite the audience to contact them in case of such occurrences.
In addition, from this past fall to early February of this year, the round table hosted four regional symposiums aimed at seeking public views with respect to the role of Canadian society in national security. These events have provided an opportunity to bring together members of Canada's ethnocultural communities with officials from the Department of Public Safety and security agencies, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Canada Border Services Agency, as well as officials from the Department of Justice.
To summarize, input from the round table to date has led to better interaction between ethnocultural communities and the security agencies, development of improved communication approaches and products by security agencies, and improved cultural awareness and sensitivity training of security agencies' officials.
As well, the Department of Canadian Heritage through the multiculturalism program, has been an active participant in the round table.
The work of the cross-cultural round table on security is a prime example of how members of Canada ethnocultural communities can work together to dialogue with government on the impact of the current government policy and laws in a manner that exemplifies the nature of this great nation and avoid stigmatizing any one segment of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, it may not make the hon. member happy, but this new government is actually delivering for New Brunswickers in ways the old Liberal government never did and never would.
Canada's new government, through ACOA, and the member should listen carefully to this figure, has approved investments across New Brunswick of more than $105 million. These investments have leveraged more than $116 million in additional public and private sector funding, strengthening economic infrastructure and quality of life in communities across New Brunswick, including communities in his own riding of Madawaska—Restigouche and my riding of Fundy—Royal.
As a New Brunswicker, I am certainly proud of the record of this new government for restoring confidence in our communities and supporting innovation and investment in New Brunswick as well as all of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche for raising this issue and allowing me the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government of Canada.
It will no doubt interest the member that the Government of Canada, through ACOA, continues to focus on helping New Brunswickers succeed in business and in fact none of ACOA's programs have been cut.
Our government has recently approved $2.7 million in additional funding for the seed capital program in New Brunswick. As a result, this important initiative will continue to be delivered by community business development corporations and community economic development agencies across the province including, the hon. member will be interested to know, the CBDC Madawaska and CBDC Victoria-Madawaska-South.
It might also interest the hon. member to know that funding under the seed capital is renewable. As funds are repaid, they return to the program allowing the community business development corporations and community economic development agencies to reinvest them in new and expanding businesses in their respective communities.
Coupled with the $2.7 million in additional funding recently approved by our government, the seed capital program portfolio in New Brunswick today totals more than $14 million. What we are talking about here is clearly not a cut in seed capital funding, but rather sound financial management.
Canada's new government is committed to accountability, and to getting things done for New Brunswickers and for all Canadians. We recognize clearly that small businesses have a major impact on our economy. In fact, small business has been responsible for 20% of all job gains in New Brunswick.
Our government understands that for these businesses to not only survive, but to thrive, they need an environment that encourages investment and innovation. Our government is committed to the creation of such an environment that will benefit generations of New Brunswickers to come.
Just last month the Minister of Finance tabled our government's second budget. The budget is focused on creating a stronger, safer and better Canada. Budget 2007 takes concrete action to improve our quality of life and ensure a strong, vibrant economy in New Brunswick and across Canada.
Budget 2007 focuses on creating five key advantages which include: a fiscal advantage, by eliminating Canada's total government net debt in less than a generation; an infrastructure advantage, by building the modern infrastructure we need, and I am sure the hon. member supports that for New Brunswick; a knowledge advantage, by creating the best educated and most skilled workforce in the world; a tax advantage, by reducing taxes for all Canadians and establishing the lowest tax rate on new business investment in the G-7; and as the hon. member alluded to, an entrepreneurial advantage, by reducing unnecessary regulation and red tape, and increasing competition across the country.
This budget continues our work to restore the confidence of taxpayers by ensuring responsible financial management and most important of all, by keeping the economy strong.
Committees of the House March 30th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a response to the sixth report in the House of Commons of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights subcommittee on solicitation laws.