House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was taxes.

Last in Parliament September 2008, as Conservative MP for Medicine Hat (Alberta)

Won his last election, in 2006, with 80% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Petitions March 26th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of several of my constituents in Medicine Hat.

The undersigned citizens of Canada draw the attention of the House to the request that the federal government ensure there will be full and open debate in the House, including standing committee hearings, on the multilateral agreement on investment.

The Canadian government must maintain its full ability to promote comprehensive job creation strategies, develop and enhance social programs such as education and health care, achieve economic and environmental goals, and develop Canada's great natural resources.

Through this agreement the rights of Canadian citizens and the power of the Canadian government to make policy must not be superseded by those of foreign investors and multinational corporations.

The Environment March 25th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, we know the minister from B.C. really is not the minister for B.C. He is actually the minister from Ottawa to B.C. telling B.C. how things are supposed to work.

We would think at least he would listen to the legions of backbenchers from Ontario. They have been complaining for weeks about this double standard that forces Ontario consumers to pay at least a cent a litre more for gasoline.

Why is the minister treating Ontario and B.C. as if they were second class provinces?

The Environment March 25th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has a rule that any companies unloading oil off ships in Canada have to pay a fee. Fair enough. What is not fair is they are forced to pay a different amount depending on the province they are in. Same oil, different price.

In Quebec for example it costs 44 cents to unload a tonne of oil but in Ontario it is $1.85. In the minister's own home province it is $1.52, almost four times as much as in Quebec.

Why is the minister from B.C. in charge of this fee discriminating against B.C. businesses and consumers?

Budget Implementation Act, 1998 March 24th, 1998

The taxman. The member for Peace River has correctly identified the taxman. We see his briefcase bulging with proceeds he has taken from individual taxpayers across the country.

I encourage people to reflect upon this tax relief, the only tax relief we have, sitting above the head of the finance minister, and to consider the symbolism of that piece of work above the public gallery. It speaks volumes about where the country is and perhaps even speaks to a perversity the government has in honouring taxes that I do not think should be honoured.

I conclude with the following amendment. I move:

That all the words after the word “that” be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-36, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 24, 1998, since the principle of the bill, while charging the consolidated revenue fund to establish and fund the Canadian millennium scholarship foundation, fails to guarantee that appropriate and objective accounting standards will be followed as advocated by the auditor general.

Budget Implementation Act, 1998 March 24th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to rise and lay out why I and the Reform Party stand in opposition to Bill C-36, the budget implementation act. I will start by giving the House an overview of the three big reasons why Reformers stand opposed to this legislation.

The first reason is that there is simply no overarching plan that really defines the roles and limits of government in this bill or in fact in any of the previous legislation we have seen from the government and which really establishes what the relationship is between government and its citizens.

The second point is that there is simply no solid plan to pay down the debt in this bill. Canadians have spoken with one voice from across the country and have said that paying down the debt is their number one priority. We see nothing that addresses that need in this legislation.

Finally there is no net tax relief in this legislation. I ask my friends across the way to note that I used the word net. While government members would have Canadians across the country believe that they are going to be better off after this budget, Canadians will pay more in taxes this year than they paid last year as a result of Liberal government tax increases.

I ask people to consider those as the reasons for our opposition to this legislation.

I want to make my point by speaking in the form of a metaphor. Taxpayers are like the goose that laid the golden egg. In fact you could say they are like the flock of geese which keep laying golden eggs. Over the last many years we have seen Ottawa run around and scoop up those golden eggs as quickly as they are laid. In some cases the government uses them to run essential programs and we are grateful for that.

People in Canada value some of the programs they get from government. They want a strong health care system. All members acknowledge that. They want a system that ensures they can get a decent education. They want a system that will provide vital essential services like national defence, foreign affairs and criminal justice. People do not begrudge for a second having to see the golden eggs that they produce go toward those types of programs.

We also know that much of what taxpayers produce in the form of revenue or golden eggs for the government is used for things that are simply not essential. The best example of that is the interest we have to pay on our debt today as a result of previous governments that have lived far too high on the hog.

Taxpayers are producing these golden eggs to the tune of about $45 billion a year just to pay the interest on the debt. The way it works out is that the average taxpayer in Canada today pays over $21,000 in federal taxes. Roughly a third of that, $6,000, goes to pay the interest on the debt.

My point is that these geese are laying a lot of golden eggs currently and Ottawa is scooping up the huge majority of them. Ottawa scoops up at least half of all the income of the average Canadian today. That is a tremendous amount.

As a result we think that these geese who are laying these golden eggs are feeling more than a little bit abused. They do not mind seeing the government take its fair share of these golden eggs, but they get a little incensed when they see the government eyeing their golden nest egg. That is exactly what is happening today in Canada.

As a matter of fact members should know that according to the Fraser Institute, since this government came to power in 1993 we have seen disposable incomes fall by $3,000 for the average family of four. We know that in Canada today we have virtually a negative savings rate. In other words people are having to dip into their savings to pay their taxes so that the government can spend more money on all kinds of inane things. Sadly that has been the case for a long, long time. When those sorts of things happen, there are real consequences.

What has happened is that we see these Canadian taxpayers, these geese who are laying these golden eggs, looking to the south. They are starting to say “We are Canadian geese. We do not want to go south, but unfortunately we are being forced to consider that option because we have mouths to feed”. They have all these goslings that have to be looked after. They have to feed the people they are responsible for. They are starting to cast about for other alternatives.

We point to the Nesbitt Burns study which came out not long ago. It showed that many professionals are fleeing this country for better opportunities south of the border and in other parts of the world. That study points out that although there are a few engineers coming in from other parts of the world, there are a whole lot more engineers disappearing from this country and going to places like the United States where they have a far better tax environment and more opportunity as well. Taxes are lower and there are more jobs in their field.

We see the same thing happening with people with skills in the high tech industries, computer scientists for instance. We also see the same thing with respect to the medical profession with both doctors and nurses. They are fleeing in droves. I know that my friends in the House, especially those from smaller centres, will acknowledge that there is not a doctor in the country who does not regularly get offers from American hospitals. Many of them ultimately end up going. As a result this country has a shortage of physicians.

As a consequence the situation today is people are being educated in Canadian universities at a tremendous cost to the Canadian taxpayers. Then we see them quickly leave to go to other jurisdictions around the world because there just is not the opportunity here.

The best example is British Columbia. British Columbia today has the highest taxes in all of North America. We can thank the provincial NDP government for that, but all of the blame does not lie there. We also have to point a finger at the federal government.

In Canada today we have the highest personal income taxes of any country in the G-7, not by a little but by over 50%. Our income taxes are 56% higher than the G-7 average. Is it any wonder that British Columbia today is entering a recession? It has gone from being the fastest growing economy in Canada to being 10th out of 10 provinces and 2 territories. It is unbelievable.

My friends across the way still continue to fire this tired rhetoric about the need to invest. That is fine. We understand the need to invest. However, if one is investing in education only to see the people who benefit from that education flee the country in terror at the prospect of having to pay taxes that are staggering compared to anywhere else in the world, does it make any sense?

The government talks about a balanced approach. Let us have a balanced approach but let it be an approach where we see taxes starting to fall in a meaningful way so that we can remain competitive with people in the United States, the U.K, Japan and other countries around the world.

Yesterday I pointed out to the House that we have members in this place who have seen family members leave for other countries to make a living. When I talk about this I should also point out that it is not necessarily just for lower taxes that they leave. An added incentive is that lower taxes create more jobs and better paying jobs.

Today the United States which has 4.8% unemployment does not have to worry about three people chasing every one job. Three jobs are chasing every one person. It is the complete reverse to Canada. As a result, wages are much higher, so people can go down to the United States and essentially command whatever price they wish.

We recently read in the newspapers the story of Waterloo university. A third of the graduating class disappeared to the United States because Microsoft made them an offer they could not refuse. I was talking to a gentleman who is on the board of directors of Waterloo university. He raised this issue with me as a serious consideration. The budget has done nothing to address that problem.

I know my friends across the way will talk about the tax relief in the budget. In fact, an hon. member at the beginning of my speech yelled across the way what about the tax relief in the budget. It is fair he raised that, but I think it is also fair for me to point out that Canadians have come out behind as a result of the government's actions since the beginning of the year.

Let me explain. It is true that the government will lay out about $7 billion in tax reductions over the next three years. However, what my friend across the way would have us forget is that on January 1 the government produced the biggest tax hike in Canadian history, a tax hike that will see CPP premiums rise by 73%.

What my friend across the way would also have us forget is that every year as a result of deindexation of the income tax system we now have an automatic tax increase called bracket creep that pushes different people in different income groups into higher tax brackets as a result of the impact of inflation.

Therefore, in this current year alone the impact of bracket creep will bring in just over $1 billion in new revenues for the government, wiping out the $880 million the government is to give people in tax relief. People are behind. My friends may call that progress but it is a perverted view of progress. We are going backward.

It is no wonder we have colleagues in this place who have children fleeing Canada as economic refugees and going to other parts of the world. Yesterday I referred to the member for Red Deer who has three children all living in different parts of the world because they went where the opportunities were best. What can they do? Are they to work in some minimum wage job simply so they can remain in Canada? They cannot do that. They need to pursue opportunity wherever it is.

My friend from Red Deer has a son who is now teaching at Princeton. He is a Rhodes scholar but he could not get a position at a Canadian university so he is teaching at Princeton. What is going on with this country? He has two daughters. One is in Norway and one is in the Netherlands. They had to leave to pursue opportunity. I point to my colleague from Calgary Southeast who has family members spread out all over the world because that is the only place they could find jobs to meet their skill levels. We have a problem.

It is fine for the finance minister to focus on education and for the parliamentary secretary to wax eloquent about what the government is doing for education. On the other hand they do not talk about what people do after they get that education. The millennium scholarship fund will end up being a subsidy to Microsoft. It will end up being a subsidy to big American corporations that scoop up those people who then go to the United States and other countries around the world. What about the balanced approach? Why has the government not addressed this problem?

I was talking a minute ago about British Columbia and I want to continue down that same path. As I mentioned, British Columbia is now in a recession. The government was patting itself on the back during the Liberal convention on the weekend, just about dislocating its shoulders. It was patting itself on the backs for the wonderful job it has done with the economy.

The Liberals forget that big chunks of the country are in serious trouble. Atlantic Canada is certainly in trouble with double digit unemployment. The fishery is dead. In many parts of the country there are no prospects.

In British Columbia both the NDP government at the provincial level and the federal government did what they could to kill the economy of one of the shining lights of the country. I point to a specific example of how that impacts on people. I could point to a number of examples from B.C. but I want to point to a recent example.

I just received a fax that was actually sent to another member of Parliament, the member for Edmonton North, by a lady from Port Moody, B.C. Members may have heard that a byelection is being held in Port Moody—Coquitlam, so it is interesting we would get this fax.

This lady is complaining about the amount of tax she has to pay. She enclosed photocopies of two cheques she sent to the Receiver General for Canada. At the bottom of the fax it says “taxes paid in instalments during the year, $46,000, which represented 23% of a $200,000 profit. The above two cheques are for profit exceeding the small business tax credit of $200,000, i.e. these amounts represent 55% of the profit”.

The total amount of these cheques would be somewhere in the range of $98,000 which they have had to pay in taxes to the federal government. That is a staggering amount of money.

Is it any wonder the job creating engine of the economy, small business, is staggering to create the jobs that are necessary? We still have an unemployment rate of 8.6%. I know my friends across the way think that is good, but it is almost double the unemployment rate in the United States. We are nowhere near our job creating potential. I encourage my friends across the way to consider that small businesses, the real creators of employment in Canada, are staggering with the tax levels.

My friends across the way have received visits from members of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, one of my favourite organizations. These people stand up for small business owners. They stand up for people who are doing all the things that annoy Liberals. They are hardworking, honest and pay their taxes. They are complaining bitterly about high taxes.

When will the government understand that $7 billion in tax relief against probably a $15 billion tax increase means people are coming out behind? We cannot continue down this road. It is killing jobs. It is killing opportunity and is driving people from the country. This has to come to an end.

I will conclude by asking my friends to look up to the relief on the wall just above the gallery. They will see a word carved on the top of it. The word is “tax” carved in stone. How appropriate that in the House of Commons in Canada we have a shrine to taxes, but that is indeed the case.

Under the word “tax” we see a family sitting on a bench. It looks as though it is a very gloomy looking family. There is a mother, a father and a child. They are sitting on the bench probably in the ante-room of the minister of finance or perhaps in Revenue Canada, waiting to find out the verdict after they have submitted their income tax for the year. I guarantee they will be sorely disappointed. We know in Canada today they would find out they owe half their income to government.

The symbolism of having that relief on the wall is interesting. It is the only tax relief we have in Canada today. There it sits almost directly over the head of the finance minister and almost in direct alignment with the finance minister. That symbolism speaks volumes. It speaks more eloquently to our situation than I ever could.

There are a couple of interesting symbols just below that family. One of them very appropriately is a serpent, a snake. Somehow to me that symbolizes the government's approach to dealing with taxpayers. At the very bottom we see a whale. I think we should take that to represent government which has become huge and consumes about 46% of the wealth of the economy every year. The final figure is the man with the briefcase just on the right hand side.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997 March 23rd, 1998

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intent of the motion but regrettably I cannot support it. I would like to take a moment to explain why.

Essentially the motion is calling for the Minister of Health to table a report assessing the adequacy of the cash transfer portion of the Canada health and social transfer.

I wonder why we have any confidence that the federal government will be a great protector of health care. Given the past history of the federal government, why in the world would we have even a shred of confidence in the government to protect health care?

I remind members once again what the Prime Minister said when he was in the 1993 leadership debate. This is exactly what transpired in that debate. The leader of the Reform Party said: “What specifically is your commitment to the level of federal transfer payments for health care? Would you keep them at the current level?” The Prime Minister responded: “I said yesterday in reply to Mr. Bouchard that I promised that they will not go down and I hope that we will be able to increase them”. I guess that did not happen, did it?

I heard the parliamentary secretary say a moment ago that the government has increased transfers for health care by $1.5 billion. He forgot to mention that the government cut transfers for health care and higher education by $7.5 billion, the largest cut to health care in the history of the country. The Liberal government closed more hospitals, shut down more hospital beds than all the provincial governments combined. Why in the world would we think for a moment that somehow the federal government will be some great protector of health care in this country?

We know that when the provincial ministers brought down their budgets this spring in each and every case they increased spending for health care.

I point out to my colleagues in the New Democratic Party that the NDP government in Saskatchewan increased spending for health care. All provincial governments did that because they are closer to the people. They know that if they make bad decisions about health care, people will be protesting on their lawn, not on the lawn of Parliament Hill, which incidentally is probably where they should have been protesting when the government blatantly broke its 1993 election promise not to cut transfers for health care and higher education.

The provinces know that people will be on their lawn protesting. They know that when there is a newspaper story about people having to wait in hallways to get treatment for health care it will be the provincial health ministers who feel the heat first and most.

That is why I cannot agree with this motion. I think it is ridiculous to ask the very people who took the broad axe to health care to be the protectors of health care, to somehow give them some new power and to give people a false sense of security that somehow the federal government has the best interests of Canadians in mind. It simply does not, it did not and we know the record is very clear that given the opportunity the first thing it does when there is a crunch is cut health care and higher education. Then when the budget was brought down, government members said “we are not going to cut it as deeply as we said we were, so now we should be honoured and deserve applause from people”. It is absolutely ridiculous.

I want to repeat the Prime Minister's quote. He said during the 1993 leaders debate: “I said yesterday in reply to Mr. Bouchard that I promised they will not go down and I hope that we will be able to increase them”. That is what he said about the Canada health and social transfer. What a joke. Just another one of a dozen important election promises that the government has absolutely broken, and I guess it does so with impunity.

I do hope that my friends in the NDP and in other political parties will not be drawn in to believe that somehow the Minister of Health will be a great protector of health care when he has proved over and over again that he cannot be counted on to do that.

I also encourage my friends in the NDP to remember that they too have colleagues at the provincial level who have added money into budgets for health care precisely because the level of government that is closest to the people is much better able to gauge public sentiment.

I encourage my friends to rethink this motion. Remember that the real protectors of health care in Canada are the people at the lower levels of government, primarily in the provinces.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997 March 23rd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of clarification. I am unclear as to what motion we are on now. Are we still debating Motion No. 2?

Liberal Convention March 23rd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, obviously everyone who voted for them was there.

I point out that the minister obviously has no plan for the people of British Columbia. If there is any province in the country that needs broad based tax relief it is B.C. High federal and provincial taxes are making it impossible for B.C. to compete with the United States and the Pacific rim.

Why will the government not introduce broad based, substantive tax relief to help the people of British Columbia and all Canadians?

Liberal Convention March 23rd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the public should be aware that it was the Reform Party which proposed that supply day motion, just so the member knows.

This weekend the Liberals were busy patting themselves on the back, conveniently forgetting about the economic trouble spots in the country, such as British Columbia. In case Liberal members do not know, British Columbia is a large mountainous area just to the west of Calgary.

I should point out that B.C.'s economy has slipped from first in the country to tenth. We have a situation where business and consumer confidence is at a new low and the federal government has absolutely bungled the fishery.

What specific plan does the government have—

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997 March 23rd, 1998

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from the Bloc for his motion. I think it is an important motion and I think colleagues around the House should support it.

The intention of the finance minister and the finance department probably was not to somehow circumvent the rules. Nevertheless, that is the position the government has put itself in. I think fairness and integrity dictate that members support the motion to avoid the appearance at least of a conflict of interest. Pretty clearly, that is what has happened.

My friend from the Bloc has talked about that at length. I want to talk about a variation on the theme. I want to talk about the irony in having Canada's finance minister have to shelter many of his own personal assets offshore to avoid paying the staggering taxes that so many Canadians have to pay. I think that is rather ironic. I think it would be very funny if not for the fact that every other Canadian really does not have the same opportunity to do that.

I say to the finance minister good for him, I am glad that he has found a way to avoid paying the same level of taxes that the rest of us pay. Truly I would like to see the same rules, the same compassion extended to all other taxpayers in this country.

Would it not be wonderful if somebody who runs the donut shop across Wellington Street could put up a Liberian flag so they did not have to pay the same high level of taxes they currently have to pay? Would it not be wonderful if in a garage in Rosetown, Saskatchewan they could put up a Panamanian flag so they did not have to pay the same staggering level of taxes they currently have to pay? It could go on and on.

I think members get the point. The fact is in Canada today people are driven to extraordinary lengths to not pay the level of taxes we currently have to pay.

As I pointed out in an earlier intervention, we have taxes that are among the highest in the world. Income tax is 56% higher than the G-7 average. I do not blame people for going to great lengths to avoid paying those taxes but it is killing this country.

There was an article in the weekend Globe and Mail about British Columbia's recession. Not long ago that province was leading the country in growth and now it is tenth in the country in terms of growth. One of the primary reasons for this is the combination of high taxes between the provincial and federal governments that has made British Columbia uncompetitive. It cannot deal with the competition from the northwest United States and the Pacific rim. Consequently that government and that province are in recession today.

I do not blame people for going to extraordinary lengths to find ways to not pay these high taxes. The sad result is that people are actually leaving the country. That is one way people deal with the problem of high taxes. Not long ago a Nesbitt Burns report was widely circulated in the media. It talked about how young Canadians, in particular university graduates and professionals, are leaving the country in droves to go to the United States in particular and to other jurisdictions where taxes are not through the roof. They want to find work where they will be allowed to keep enough income to live the types of lives they have dreamed about. They obviously feel they can no longer do that in Canada. That is sad.

The Nesbitt Burns report talked about the computer technicians this country is losing. That is terrible. We are losing doctors, nurses, teachers and engineers. Some of our brightest and best are disappearing from this country. It is not only an economic tragedy, it is a personal tragedy too. We are seeing families split up.

My friend, the hon. member for Red Deer, has three children. They have all left Canada to find work. One is in Norway. Another is a Rhodes scholar and is teaching in the U.S. at Harvard. He could not get a job in Canada so he left for greener pastures where the taxes are not so high. I believe this member has another daughter in the Netherlands. My friend, the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, has family spread out around the world as a result of the high taxes.

Who can blame the finance minister? He is only doing what everybody else is doing, trying to find ways to avoid the crushing burden of taxes in this country. The challenge to my friends across the way and to the finance minister is to find ways for people to enjoy their assets in Canada, to find a way for us to live the lives we want to live in Canada without having to pay taxes through the roof. That is a novel concept, is it not?

Instead of focusing on finding new and creative ways to spend $11 billion, which is what they chose to spend in the last budget, why do my friends across the way not find ways to lower the tax burden in this country to help Canadians out? What is wrong with that? Why do we have to drive people out of this country? People are voting with their feet. They are leaving. The brightest and the best are leaving. We cannot tolerate that.

It is time for my friends across the way to wake up and understand that clause 41 is a symptom of a much larger problem, that taxes in this country are too high. They are far too high. We are now in a position where Canadians work half the year just to pay the federal government. If I were to ask members in this House what they would call it if they had to go to work for six months of the year, had every cent taken and worked for no remuneration, they would call that slavery. But that is exactly what we do in Canada today. We spend half the year working for the government.

When is the government going to wake up and understand that this cannot continue? When is it going to do more than the half measures we saw in this budget? The government said that it introduced $7 billion in tax relief in the budget although it forgot to point out that it previously introduced new tax measures that would take $9 billion out of the economy. That would leave Canadians a couple of billion dollars worse off than they were last year. The government calls that tax relief. I call it robbery.

It is ridiculous that the government can get away with that type of thing. I hope that friends across the way will come to realize that bills like Bill C-28 are simply a symptom of the sickness of the government's perverse idea that it has to justify its existence by taxing people ever ever more. I ask them to reflect on the irony of a finance minister who has put his assets offshore so he does not have to pay the staggering level of taxation that we have in this country.

Surely there is a lesson for the House in this example. I would expect that friends in this House would come to appreciate that this is ridiculous. It is time to bring this to an end. I urge my friends to support the Bloc motion to oppose the inclusion of clause 241. We can no longer have taxation levels that are among the highest in the world, ones that not even the finance minister can afford.