Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was billion.

Last in Parliament April 1997, as Reform MP for Calgary Centre (Alberta)

Lost his last election, in 2000, with 22% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act June 6th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

Time and again we have asked questions in the House on MPs' pensions. We were promised a review and action. Nothing has happened in six months and we are three weeks from the break. It was not in the newspaper was it? On March 7 the Prime Minister stated that when MPs quit it is not necessarily easy for them to get re-established in private life. Eighty-two per cent of MPs find work within one year of leaving office.

How can the Minister of Finance continue to justify the fact that MPs are still entitled to and continue to collect pensions for life after only six years of contributions?

The Economy June 3rd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I specifically asked what new action and I got a repeat of the same line we heard before.

The four main rating agencies are sending smoke signals to the government warning about the danger of inaction on the deficit. Will the finance minister do something to reduce federal spending before these smoke signals erupt into a full-fledged fire?

The Economy June 3rd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the minister expressed disappointment at Canada losing its last AAA foreign currency debt rating. Disappointment is not enough for bond rating agencies or the Canadian public. It is clear that investors do not believe that current fiscal measures are sufficient to allay their concerns about Canada's debt crisis.

Besides promises to meet deficit targets, what new action is the minister going to take to ensure that no further erosion of our credit rating takes place?

Budget Implementation Act May 31st, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I too serve on the Standing Committee on Finance and I am very disappointed in listening to the previous member's comments. It seems to me that he has a different version of the facts than I have. I was there and heard some of the comments and some of the explanations given.

With respect to the people he had invited who were kicked out and went to the media after, it was quite clear that some of the parties did not have an invitation or arrived unexpectedly and were allowed to present their cases. Both of them agreed that they would present their cases within a half an hour. The chairman of the standing committee gave permission for that

and co-operated so that both parties could be heard, and this is the appreciation they get. The grandstanding and the criticism in the press came after that.

I was present, I heard the explanation to that and that is a different set of facts. I am just saying what I saw and what I heard differs from what the hon. member just said.

His decision to put on a flair that he is the person now representing all of Canada because he has such an interest and such a caring heart for the unemployed is adverse to reality. Everybody cares about the unemployed, but we also have a concern about the deficit and the debt. We also have a concern about how to approach it.

For a member who quite clearly wants to separate from the rest of Canada to state and argue and present a case that we are not for Canada borders on double talk or contradiction of terms.

He is talking about a member of the Reform Party being present or not being present at these committees. I was not the individual named to the subcommittee that examined Bill C-17. I am sure there were problems getting people together. I am sure it was hard to co-ordinate it all because there are only 100 things that you have to do within an hour around this place.

If he truly were interested in representing his point of view, representing his argument, I suggest that he would go a lot further in accomplishing those goals if he pointed out the problems of Bill C-17 as we have, pointed out the constructive alternatives to Bill C-17 as we have, and then let the House decide which way to vote instead of going around and basically distorting the way events actually occurred.

Human Rights May 30th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I will accept that waffle as a probable, yes.

In 1990 Norma Janzen of Langley, B.C., was fired from her job teaching children with learning disabilities. She had refused to join the B.C. Teachers' Federation fearing that a strike would force her to abandon her students, something she did not want to do.

This was a clear breach of Mrs. Janzen's right not to be forced to associate with the union. Mrs. Janzen has had to file a lawsuit to re-establish the freedom she has been denied.

Given the minister's response, will he instruct the Solicitor General and the Minister of Human Resources Development to seek intervener status in the case in support of Mrs. Janzen?

Human Rights May 30th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Among the rights listed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as guaranteed to all Canadians is the right to freedom of association, that is the right of Canadian citizens to choose for themselves those individuals or groups with whom they do or do not wish to associate.

Does the Minister of Justice support this right of freedom of association?

Points Of Order May 27th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, earlier in question period when the hon. member for Don Valley North asked a question of his finance minister in such glowing terms, I need a ruling. The question was so flagrantly biased in a way I need to know-

Jean-Pierre Paquet And Andrée Massicotte May 26th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to give some words of praise for two dedicated public servants.

Members may recall a recent incident in Saudi Arabia where a group of foreign nurses were harassed and assaulted by local authorities. One of my constituents, Mr. Terry Wood, spent that entire weekend seeking information about his daughter, fearing she may have been involved in that incident. Happily she was not.

Mr. Wood is extremely grateful for the assistance he received from two watch officers with the Department of Foreign Affairs who were on duty that weekend, Jean-Pierre Paquet and Andrée Massicotte. Mr. Wood feels that the effort they put forth on his behalf went beyond basic job requirements and that they truly went that extra mile to see his concerns settled.

When a family member is in trouble incidents such as this one become very important indeed, something Mr. Paquet and Ms. Massicotte obviously recognize.

Their efforts on Mr. Wood's behalf reflect great credit on the Department of Foreign Affairs and on the public service as a whole and they are to be highly commended.

Budget Implementation Act May 26th, 1994

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to this portion or grouping of Bill C-17, specifically clauses 18 to 20 which authorize the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to borrow up to $25 million, plus more by special legislation if necessary.

When will the Liberal government and the country understand that this borrowed money is in fact debt capital and not equity capital which at the end of the day will simply increase the government's deficit?

The government in this fiscal year will add $41 billion to the debt which will take it over the $550 billion mark. It is this debt and the interest to service the debt that have helped to create the recession and put 1.7 million Canadians out of work and forced countless businesses to close their doors.

Why does the government continue to lend money it does not have? When will it face up to the reality that just as Canadians are forced to curtail spending so must the government?

Unaccountable crown corporations like the CBC sail through these troubled times spending money believing that there is plenty more where that came from.

In the finance department's March 16 news release regarding Bill C-17 the finance minister stated:

The act proposes to implement initiatives in support of our twin objectives of job creation and deficit reduction.

I put this question to all members of the House and all taxpayers watching this on TV: How can $25 million in borrowed money, in addition to the $1.1 billion of taxpayers' money that the CBC currently receives, possibly reduce the deficit? Is the CBC going to hire more people? Will the tax revenue from income create a profit for the government?

This is a contradiction in terms. It is like saying the more money we spend the more money we will have in savings. The CBC is not a made for profit corporation. Therefore any amount of money that we give it will add to the deficit. It is a corporation whose ratings have dropped and the only way it generates any revenues at all is by playing U.S. produced shows which do not satisfactorily portray Canadian culture.

It is this generosity with other people's money that creates the pie in the sky Liberal logic which takes the emphasis off the real problems in this country, high debt, high interest costs to service this debt and high taxes to pay for wasteful grants and subsidies.

Liberal government members have said that 85 per cent of real jobs are created in the private sector. Therefore I submit they would do a better job creating long term, meaningful jobs with $1.1 billion in tax reduction rather than subsidizing the CBC with $1.1 billion.

If the government truly wants to promote Canadian identity and pride, let the private sector create long term, meaningful jobs and put Canadians back to work. The government should regulate, administer, pass laws and defend borders, but stop interfering with the marketplace by endlessly funding crown corporations and short term job creation programs that benefit the few and not society as a whole.

If the federal government sees a vital role for Canadian content on TV then regulate it, do not pay for it. Let the law of supply and demand dictate which shows stay on and which shows are cut.

I believe it is time to consider a partial privatization of the CBC. The fact is that under the present situation Canadians are not watching.

At a recent licence renewal hearing CRTC chairman Keith Spicer told reporters that CBC's English network saw its audience share dip to 13.5 per cent in 1992-93 from 15 per cent in 1990-91. Mr. Spicer went on to say: "Your ratings are plummeting. They are falling like a rock".

This is a perfect example of what happens when companies lack a competitive atmosphere. There is less incentive and lower overall quality of the product. Private sector companies in this position have shut their doors and have closed forever. This is not the case, however, with the CBC which has guaranteed government backing. With Bill C-17 it will have yet another option to borrow.

When will the government acknowledge that it is in fact part of the problem and not the solution? When will the government stop the unlimited funding of the CBC? When will the government create the atmosphere and environment for investment and stop making investments with money that it does not have? The private sector understands this. It is time that cabinet ministers did too.

Private sector growth generates confidence and opportunity. It sends a message to investors that this country is able and willing to compete.

The Liberal government should send a message to foreign and domestic investors, lenders and businesses that Canada welcomes competition in a fair marketplace, free from government interference, subsidies and grants. This signal alone would bring in equity capital for businesses and the government could get out of businesses it knows nothing about such as the CBC, Petro-Canada and Canada Post.

The CBC presently pays millions of dollars to broadcast American comedies. Mr. Spicer stated: "The network is merely tinkering with this direction in the face of crisis". Where is the accountability or the justification?

As a businessman I know that corporations both public and private over time begin to lose their overall objectives. Perhaps Mr. Spicer's quote is an indication that the CBC has itself moved away from its original objective of providing quality Canadian programs, promoting Canadian culture and talent.

Privatization of the CBC in whole or in part would, as Mr. Spicer said, force the company off the road to oblivion without a rescue plan.

With privatization the performance of the CBC would be subject to market rules with market benefits and market sanctions. Even partial privatization would reduce the deficit and still maintain jobs. Time and again private corporations have proven that they can operate more efficiently and effectively than crown corporations. A dollar spent in the private sector requires three dollars for the same service in the public sector.

At risk money motivates, government money obligates but it obligates the wrong people, the taxpayers, without enough say. Decisions in the private sector must be made quickly to take advantage of investment opportunities as they arise. Companies that make these decisions subsequently suffer or gain from the consequences. Crown corporations have long been criticized for their inability to make these decisions. It is largely due to the lack of incentive, motivation and accountability because the government acts as a safety net.

Who gets fired if a costly program never airs? Who ever hears about it? Who ultimately pays for the extravagance and the errors?

Government involvement gives these corporations a kind of financial longevity that corporations in the private sector do not have. Therefore the longevity becomes a burden to taxpayers. This promotes unfair competition within industry sectors, those who have to answer to shareholders and those who have an endless supply of taxpayers' money.

Privatization would also improve the government's financial position. Selling assets would allow this government to reduce its monetary requirements for the year, which for this year will be $41 billion, and repay part of our accumulated debt of over $516 billion.

Privatization in whole or in part of the CBC, not $25 million in borrowing authority, would help the government truly meet the so-called twin objectives of the finance minister of job creation and deficit reduction.

As of eleven o'clock this morning, the Doomsday clock calculated the national debt at $516,293,742,299.79. Since 11 o'clock this morning the debt has continued to grow at a rate of $1,473.50 per second with a debt per taxpayer of $36,730.20.

Budget Implementation Act May 26th, 1994

I heard an hon. member opposite say: "We will". We will hold them to that promise.

I caution the government about making the same mistake with welfare as it is making with health care, which as members know, is another purpose of the Canada assistance plan and transfers to the provinces. The government has promised social security reform based on a co-operative effort among the federal and provincial governments. Clearly this is not happening. Evidence of this is in the refusal of some provinces to attend a scheduled briefing on health care.

The government makes the same mistake with this welfare program and decreased funding levels which it must and is doing. However it has to give the provincial governments the freedom to adjust to these changes and target funding appropriately.

The provinces cannot be punished by having to reduce their spending or having to figure out alternate ways of paying for these programs that are only partially subsidized by the federal government. Whereas they should have been subsidized to a higher degree, the federal government reduces the funding and the provinces have to look for ways and means to pay for the programs and then they are cut off. We know it is a problem but we just wish the government would be more aware of it.

Currently despite the fact that constitutionally welfare is strictly under the control of the provincial governments the federal government enforces national standards through the Canada assistance plan and regulations. We have a few concerns about this area. Alienating the provinces along with cuts which decrease the federal spending power may make it difficult when it comes to the social policy reforms being planned for in the fall by the minister of human resources.

Overall we recognize the need for significant reform and the reduction of federal transfer payments to provinces to balance the budget. We just have a concern about the overall plan or strategy.