Bill Gilmour

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999, May 4th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I would like to put a few points on the record in the five minutes that remain.

It is interesting to look across the way. It is almost a state of denial. Look at where 40 years of successive tax and spend governments have put us. I will show myself as being a little long in the tooth, but I remember in the 1950s when we went to the United States and put a dollar on the table, we got $1.12 back or $1.09. The Canadian dollar was worth more than the American dollar but today it is below 67 cents. That did not happen by osmosis; it happened through government policies.

We consistently get the denial from across the way “Well, we always look at our pals in the United States. It is the United States that we always look to”. In some ways we do, because the Americans have the luxury of an economy that is going far faster, in multiples of what ours is doing.

If we have to make a comparison, we do not have to go down to the United States. We just have to compare my home province of British Columbia with its next door neighbour Alberta to see what different taxation policies can do. We not only have the Liberal government to contend with but we also have the provincial NDP government and British Columbia has been put on its knees with the cumulative effect of the two. Compare that to Alberta which basically has no sales tax and has a very envious record. Again, that is through public policy, policies of successive governments that have gone in the direction of building the economy, not knocking it down.

It is not just a simplistic answer. We have interprovincial trade barriers, for example. We have talked about it. It is a huge cauldron. In Ontario and Quebec it is a one-way street with workers going across one way but it is not reciprocal the other way. That is a simple example of the trade barriers in one province not being the same in others. It goes right across the country.

What about our debt? I started out by saying our dollar was $1.12 compared to a U.S. dollar 50 years ago, and it is now down to 67 cents. Back in those days we had a very tiny debt. The reason our dollar is down on its knees is the huge burden. The world markets are looking at Canada and saying that with this huge debt we have hanging over us, they do not have faith in our economy and they do not have faith in our dollar.

Canadians would like the government to address that. For example, the U.S. plans to pay off its debt in about 13 years. Australia plans to do it in about three years. With the forecasting from the finance minister, in Canada it is something like 190 years at the present rate. There is no political will to move forward to attack that debt so that we can bring the economy forward.

It is the cumulative effect of taxes, of debt and of legislation that does not favour business. In fact, it penalizes business. It penalizes. It is as if it is a crime in this country to make a buck. This is with tongue in cheek but basically with the Liberal policy, the simple tax form in part A asks how much money we made and part B says to send it in. That is about where this government has been going.

Canadians are on their knees. They are taxed not only federally, but in some cases we have a provincial regime that does not work, and the municipalities as well. This country needs to get its tax burden across the board under control. All levels of government have to do that.

We have seen other countries that we have to compete with. I mentioned earlier in a question Japan, Taiwan and now China. These are countries that started off at the low end but through the years and with progressive government policies that favour industry and productivity have moved forward. These are the economies we as Canadians have to deal with.

I am running out of time, so I will wind up. On the tax issue, if there is just one message I wish the government would really listen to, it is that we need to lower taxes at all levels.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999, May 4th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, my colleague was talking earlier about international trade.

I would like to go back about 40 or 50 years when Japan was just starting out and when the image of made in Japan was not a particularly good item. However through progressive governments that have been favourable to industry, through productivity, individual work ethics, some of that productivity in Japan is now some of the best in the world.

We have seen that go from Japan to Korea to Taiwan, a similar move of where economies start at the low end but through progressive governments that are favourable to industry, they end up doing particularly well on the international market. These are the markets with which we have to compete. We will be competing with China over the next several decades. That will be an absolute workhorse of productivity and an economy that works.

My impression is that Canada is just about at the opposite end. The government is trying to penalize industry. It is not making progressive taxation or legislation that works for industry. That is my impression. I ask my colleague do we seem to be on the wrong side of this issue?

[Canada Development Corporation, April 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister may be in a conflict of interest by being on the board of the Canada Development Corporation because of discussions about the tainted blood issue at the cabinet table.

We know that the Deputy Prime Minister has said that the ethics counsellor has the board minutes of the CDC and Connaught Labs. There is one way to clear this issue up and that is to release all of the minutes of those boards. Why does the government refuse to issue those board minutes?

[Millennium Bureau Of Canada, April 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as if the HRDC scandal were not bad enough, now we have the Millennium Bureau funnelling millions of dollars into Liberal ridings.

I suppose we should not be surprised—yet another program set up to provide Liberals with a slush fund. For example, the Deputy Prime Minister's riding is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars funnelled from this fund into his riding.

The HRDC scandal was bad enough. Why are the Liberals allowing the Millennium Bureau to pick up where the HRDC scandal left off?

[Human Resources Development, April 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the minister have a chat with the information commissioner because he does not agree with what the minister has said. If the minister said what we think she was saying, that there was not a problem in HRD because her ministry took care of it and audits took place, that is simply not the case. The commissioner has said her department is equally responsible, equally accountable. Why did the minister allow it to occur?

[Human Resources Development, April 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it now appears that the HRD minister had an accomplice in the billion dollar boondoggle. According to the information commissioner, Treasury Board is equally guilty because it did not enforce its own rules.

Why did the President of the Treasury Board refuse to enforce her own regulations, thus allowing the HRD scandal to take place?

[Canada Post Corporation Act, March 31st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-238 put forward by the member for Winnipeg Centre.

The bill basically is an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act to repeal section 13(5) of the act dealing with rural route mail couriers.

What section 13(5) deems is that rural route couriers are not dependent contractors and are therefore not eligible to collectively bargain or form an association so they can negotiate contracts with Canada Post. In other words, they cannot form a union.

Repealing this section would allow rural route couriers basically to join the public workers' union. Although we agree with the concerns that the bill highlights, we do not agree with the solution.

Currently rural route mail couriers must submit a tender for their jobs and then negotiate with Canada Post.

The problem is that Canada Post does not have a tendering or contract guideline to ensure that the process is fair. This is the crux of the problem that the rural route couriers have. Many members in the House have rural areas in their ridings, as I do, and have heard about this issue many times.

As a result, many rural route mail couriers feel they are working under extremely poor conditions and substandard wages. For example, Canada Post officials are forcing independent contractors to lower their bids in order to maintain their contracts. Unfair limitations are being placed on their ability to act as independent contractors. These problems need to be addressed.

Four years ago when the Canadian Alliance was the Reform Party, I was critic for public works. George Radwanski tabled an exceptionally good report dealing with Canada Post issues. A couple of the issues are quite relevant to this discussion. One is that Radwanski found:

The corporation is not subject to any adequately effective accountability mechanisms. Neither the minister responsible for Canada Post, nor any branch of the government, nor even the corporation's own board of directors has any way of providing the sustained supervision necessary to ensure that its priorities and behaviour are fully consistent with the public interest.

This is the crux of the matter. We have people in Canada Post who are running their own show. It is supposed to be a corporation for all Canadians, yet it is not being run in that manner.

We agree with the member that rural couriers are being done in. They are not being treated fairly. However, where we disagree with the member is on how to deal with this problem. We feel the mechanisms within Canada Post need to be addressed rather than unionizing those postal workers.

Radwanski also found that Canada Post businesses practices were aggressive and unfair. It is no surprise to hear the concerns of the rural route couriers coming forward. However, as I have said, we feel that repealing subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, as proposed in the bill, is not the answer.

Eliminating subsection 13(5) will eliminate the tendering process and prevent anyone other than a union member from vying for the job of a rural route mail courier. We think that is wrong. In other words, the bill overreaches what we feel is the stated intention.

Bill C-238 creates an ungainly situation where several unions may be competing for the same members. The bill may also lead to a conflict of interest between what a dependent contractor is and what their employers are. We feel that there are other options available. As it stands, the tendering and contract process is not fair, not honest and is simply not above board. The way to go is to fix that problem and the rural route problem will be fixed.

The basic issue is that we need a mechanism that obliges Canada Post to conduct fair and open tendering processes within its contracts. Everyone needs to know what the conditions are. This is the principle of the issue we are facing today. If we could fix the contract tendering process I believe we would solve the problem. As well, if the mechanism is not put in place to guarantee these conditions, the Canadian Alliance will investigate the possibility of making treasury board contracting policy applicable in this case.

In summary, we agree there is a problem that has clearly been identified by the member. We disagree with his manner of solving it. We do not believe that eliminating the section is the solution. We believe the solution is to deal with Canada Post to get fair tendering processes in place which will solve the issue.

[Patrick Kelly, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Patrick Kelly has been in prison for 18 years for a crime he says he did not commit. Kelly's conviction for the murder of his wife was based on testimony by a key witness who now admits that she lied.

The Ontario Court of Appeal examined this case and handed down a divided decision, with one judge calling for a new trial. The justice minister then had the opportunity to clear any question of guilt or innocence by granting Patrick either a new trial or a supreme court reference.

The minister had nothing to lose by reopening the courts. Yet last Friday the justice minister denied Patrick Kelly his right to justice.

This issue is not about guilt or innocence; it is about a flawed justice system that has denied Patrick Kelly a fair hearing before the courts. Given the circumstances of this case, the minister's decision is a grave miscarriage of justice.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, March 22nd, 2000]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-454, an act to to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (trafficking in a controlled drug or substance within five hundred metres of an elementary school or a high school).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to table my private member's bill, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The bill would provide greater protection for our youth against the illegal drug trade which is undermining our society.

My bill proposes to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to impose a minimum prison term of one year for the first offence and two years for further offences in cases where a person is convicted of trafficking in a controlled or restricted drug or narcotic within five hundred metres of an elementary school or a high school.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Human Resources Development, March 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we know it is St. Patrick's Day but there is more than a wee bit of the blarney in that answer.

It is rather ironic that the main beneficiary in terms of jobs in the Prime Minister's riding is the RCMP.

There are currently at least three RCMP criminal investigations within his own riding, more than in any other riding within the country.

When we listen to the Minister of Veterans Affairs we would expect that it is simply a coincidence that these things happen in the Prime Minister's riding. Why is it that the Prime Minister's riding attracts criminal investigations—