Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 1-15 of 16
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Justice committee  Just as a quick addition to that, I would add that this same study quoted 69% of Canadians as saying that sentences are too lenient in general. The authors go on to explain that if you really dig into it, maybe it's not the case. But I believe that the public in British Columbia

March 25th, 2009Committee meeting

Dave Park

Justice committee  Perhaps I can answer that question. It's our understanding, from discussions with Statistics Canada and from looking at similar survey results, from other countries such as the United States and in the UN survey, that in fact they ask “Have you experienced a crime?” I'm not sure

March 25th, 2009Committee meeting

Dave Park

Justice committee  I think you touched upon it. There's no point in just repeating something and expecting a different result. Yes, by all means there needs to be some way of restricting these people's activities so that society is not as afflicted by their activities, but there's no point in doi

March 25th, 2009Committee meeting

Dave Park

Finance committee  I would suggest that the broader perspective is the appropriate one. So for example, to the extent that debt is paid down, it frees up additional moneys for other purposes. I wouldn't restrict it to the core. I think the government has to look at everything and ask whether what t

October 3rd, 2006Committee meeting

Dave Park

Finance committee  There are so many good things we could spend social funds on. We have to look at it, step back, re-evaluate it all, and balance it. That's a job that is tricky and very difficult for government. We're just saying that you have to look at the existing programs and cut far more tha

October 3rd, 2006Committee meeting

Dave Park

Finance committee  I think we should start with health care and reform the system, so you're able to do it. You can't do it under the current system. As long as you're stuck with a lot of existing parameters, you're going to handcuff yourself from being able to do some of these things.

October 3rd, 2006Committee meeting

Dave Park

Finance committee  Absolutely. I think the point we were making is that the target was too modest—$1 billion per year on $180 billion, or whatever it is in terms of the total budget. There should be room for far more than that. As a matter of fact, as a deliberate design, surely there are programs

October 3rd, 2006Committee meeting

Dave Park

Finance committee  If I might, as a supplementary response, I would suggest to you that with the growth of the economy, perhaps it would be able to do both.

October 3rd, 2006Committee meeting

Dave Park

Finance committee  I would suggest at this point that the priority in the future should go to maintaining the 1% tax cut that has occurred, but then move to tax cuts that would stimulate capital investment and reduce income tax.

October 3rd, 2006Committee meeting

Dave Park

Finance committee  It would suggest that both are productive, but some are more productive than others.

October 3rd, 2006Committee meeting

Dave Park

Finance committee  I think I've just responded, according to our policy.

October 3rd, 2006Committee meeting

Dave Park

Finance committee  I suggested that in terms of priority, in terms of future tax cuts, they should go to measures that would stimulate capital investment and that would reduce income tax before we cut further on consumption taxes.

October 3rd, 2006Committee meeting

Dave Park

Finance committee  Not directly; however, we have produced a report called “Reforming the Canadian Healthcare System”. In fact, the recommendation was cited earlier by a representative about looking at European health care systems and trying to find some kind of amalgam, a hybrid system that would

October 3rd, 2006Committee meeting

Dave Park

Finance committee  I'd be happy to respond.

October 3rd, 2006Committee meeting

Dave Park

Finance committee  First of all, any tax reduction is a good move.

October 3rd, 2006Committee meeting

Dave Park