House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 65% of the vote.
National Defence November 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, another helicopter mishap and the minister has not even been able to get the helicopters off the ground. I do not think the minister is treating this issue with the importance it should have.
It will be another two years before a new Cormorant helicopter comes into service. The defence department has said that operating the Labradors beyond 1998 is a significant risk.
Will the defence minister look at leasing new helicopters as a stopgap measure?
Canada Small Business Financing Act November 24th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that question. I certainly agree with him regarding employment insurance.
Much of the deficit reduction has been on the backs of individuals and the provinces. Look at the social commitment the Liberal government has in plain terms. It has betrayed the taxpayer and has cut back on transfer payments to the provinces. Really, looking at the situation plain and simple, it betrayed the social contract. There were health care cuts to the point where there are line-ups in the hospitals and where there is a serious technology gap in our hospitals as far as treatment is concerned.
I agree with the hon member that the money taken in this regard should go back to the wage earner and to the businessman.
Canada Small Business Financing Act November 24th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it has become more than clear about the situation as far as the economy is concerned. It certainly was not as a result of this government's action. The hon. member should not pat himself on the back for something he had nothing to do with.
Employment insurance is a tax cutting into the wages of employees and beating up on employers. How was the deficit reduced? Was it with the austere program this Liberal government put forward? No. It was an increase in the economy that, in spite of what this government has done, allowed more revenues to come into the coffers. That is how the books were balanced.
If the government were truly interested in creating a level playing field for businesses it would attack the more significant problems. It is not willing to do that.
Trade barriers should come down. There should be some tax relief. Where is the tax relief? There is none. The Liberal government has increased payroll taxes through bracket creep by $3,500 for a family of four. That is disgraceful. It is money taken out of their pockets.
Canada Small Business Financing Act November 24th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona for sharing his time with me. I appreciate his comments and I agree with them for the most part. I make it absolutely clear that I am also opposed to this bill. I do not know if my colleagues across the way would really understand that or if they suspected anything different but that is the case. There is good reason for that.
All this bill does is put a band-aid on the problem. It seems the Liberal government is good at putting band-aids on what could be and should be considered as systemic problems, and those solutions really do not hold up.
There is no question that all businesses need capital, they need cash. They need equity investment. There are presently certain inhibitors to the cashflow process. Those who have cash should be able to create a situation in which small businesses could flourish more than they do.
What they do not need is for the government to drive them into more debt when it does not have to, and too often that is the case. I can cite example after example in and around the region where I came from in Alberta with government interference. A lot of that so-called easy money seems to go to friends of the Liberal government. The playing field is not even when it comes to government distribution of money to the small businesses to help them develop. I find it reprehensible for the most part.
Why is it that the government turns to debt to solve cash shortages? It wants businesses to do the same thing. It is like most Liberal initiatives. Bill C-53 addresses only the symptoms of the problem. Canadian small businesses do not need more access to debt. They need more access to equity. They need more access to customers with money and they need the government to leave them alone.
It is not government that creates small businesses or all that much employment. It is the small businesses that create employment for the most part. They do not need more debt.
We say that until the systemic problems associated with excessive taxation are addressed small business will continue to struggle for more available cash. We recognize the concerns of small business owners. We know they need more disposable cash and I have had many come to me in my riding. Members across the way undoubtedly have had the same experience. They are just so much short of operating capital. Their businesses are close to being very viable. It is just that they need to get over that hump. So many of them fail because they do not have access to the cash they need. I am not saying that every business will be a viable one but there are many that are and just do not have the cash they need.
We strongly feel, though, that the way to address these concerns is through lowering the tax burden on individual Canadians as well as businesses. More money in the hands of customers, the wage earners, means more money spent on and at Canadian businesses. More money in the hands of businesses means stronger businesses, more jobs for Canadians and more opportunities for new business ventures as well as expansion.
I think we have seen some examples of some profitable businesses over this last bump up in the economy where businesses have expanded in a substantial way just through their own initiatives. It certainly was not as a result of the government. It was their own initiatives.
Addressing a short term cash crunch through more government loan programs will only exacerbate the existing problem. Bill C-53 does nothing to address the underlying causes of small business troubles. It deals merely with the symptoms of larger economic problems which are the responsibility of the government. The government should be creating an atmosphere for business to thrive in.
Unfortunately this bill not only skirts the real issues facing small business it actually creates more of the same problems which led to small business failures in the first place. I have seen government intervention in Alberta where it encouraged farmers to invest money into expanded operations. It would even lend money. It almost threw it in their faces to expand value added businesses that were in a way on shaky ground because there was no telling what the commodity markets were going to do. It was not a natural process of expansion.
The banks were also involved and then the crunch came. Millions of dollars were invested. What happened? The farmers lost their equity. They lost their new business ventures plus the land. That has happened in far too many cases because of government involvement in lending money or pushing it on them. There were some who of course jumped at it. Instead of letting the normal flow of business take its own course, this is what happens. As a result we end up with many failures, far above what it should be.
The other case at hand when we come to government throwing capital to small businesses is who pays when a venture collapses. It is the taxpayers of course. It falls on their shoulders. The tax situation in this country is unbearable. The responsibility lies across the way here. I do not have to tell you that, Mr. Speaker. You are a small businessman and would know full well what expansion would mean. I am sure that when you expanded your business you went to the government to get more capital. It is a foolish thing. There are many entrepreneurs that do not need to do that.
I think the government should be addressing the economic problems. There are ways it can do that. I am urging the government to implement substantive systemic change that will address the underlying causes of business failures, freeing up for instance capital gains. Get rid of the capital gains tax and there would be more capital to actually invest. I do not think that is a bad idea. I think it is something that should be addressed in a substantial way.
There are trade barriers between provinces and from one region to the other that should be removed. What does that cost the business community every year? If I remember correctly, it is somewhere between $5 billion to $6 billion. Let us work toward eliminating some of the trade barriers.
There is high taxation. Money placed in the hands of a wage earner is more profitable than in some government bureaucrat's hand. That would be money spent and it would assist the business community in establishing a firm base. There are payroll taxes and employment insurance both from the business community and the wage earner.
We have a surplus right now. The Minister of Finance cannot wait to get his hands on it. Really it is money that should be placed in the hands of the wage earner and the businessman. What would they do with that money? I know exactly what they would do with it. The wage earner would spend it. The businessman would look at it and say “here is an opportunity for me to buy another machine and employ two or three more people”. That is what would happen. But on the other side, it is gone. It is going to disappear.
Canadian Forces November 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, 40 other officers and soldiers witnessed this horrible sight.
Instead of disciplining the general the government gave him a lucrative contract to teach his brand of twisted ethics to other officers. Why?
Canadian Forces November 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, in 1993 two Canadian soldiers were killed while on duty in Bosnia. According to access to information documents their commanding officer, General MacInnis, allowed their bodies to lie in a basement unattended for three days before being prepared to come back to Canada.
Given General MacInnis' disrespect for his soldiers, can the minister explain why this general is now teaching ethics and leadership to the next generation of senior officers at the Canadian forces college in Toronto?
National Defence November 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, a deal is a deal. Matt Stopford is sitting in the House right now. He is listening to and watching this defence minister. He represents over 1,000 soldiers who have been injured by the same radiation exposure.
I urge the defence minister to be cautious in his reply. When will he uphold his part of the deal, provide compensation and treatment to this soldier and to all the others who were injured?
National Defence November 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, when warrant officer Matt Stopford joined the Canadian forces he made a deal. He promised to put his life on the line to protect his country. In return he expected his country, if he was hurt, to look after him and his family.
Now Matt Stopford is seriously ill as a result of radiation exposure on his last tour to Yugoslavia. This government broke the deal and is not looking after him.
My question is to the defence minister. When will he provide treatment and compensation to Matt Stopford as he promised?
Veterans Affairs November 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has a solemn responsibility to look after our war veterans, and yet this government has neglected the veterans who are under care at the Perley-Rideau veterans' hospital in Ottawa. Our veterans do not deserve that kind of treatment.
I ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs, why is this government shirking its responsibility to provide veterans with adequate health care?
Canadian Wheat Board November 3rd, 1998
Were they just born?