House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 80% of the vote.
Employment Insurance November 24th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, while the minister is dropping EI premiums by 10 cents a day, he will begin hiking CPP payroll taxes by $1.90 a day on January 1, $3.80 for the self-employed.
When is the minister going to quit this shell game and admit that taxes are going up and not down as he is trying to lead Canadians to believe?
Employment Insurance November 24th, 1997
—and they are clapping for it. That is embarrassing.
If Canadians work seven days a week and take their huge tax windfall, they will be lucky to have a down payment on a cup of coffee. That is what it works out to. When is the finance minister going to quit nickel and diming Canadians and give them real tax relief, not a dime a day?
Employment Insurance November 24th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, on Friday the finance minister announced a cut to EI premiums that works out to less than a dime a day for Canadians—
Canada Post November 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, we have 9.1% unemployment. Some 1.4 million people are unemployed in the country today. This strike will cost Canadian businesses about $40 million a day.
How can the minister stand there and not do anything at all, knowing that hundreds of thousands, millions of Canadians, will suffer because of its inaction? When will the government legislate them back to work?
Canada Post November 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, low income people, seniors and people who live in rural Canada are the people who depend on Canada Post to stay in touch with their friends and family. We have an instance of a charity in Montreal that uses Canada Post to do its fund-raising so it can do its good work.
Why is the government allowing all these very vulnerable groups and individuals to suffer because of its inaction?
The Environment November 6th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, it looks like the highest price is the law for the government.
What we have here is a double standard; one set of laws for most Canadians who follow them every day and then there are the Liberals who are guided by the law that if you do not get caught then it is okay.
How can we say to a pulp mill or a mining operation that if it pollutes we will prosecute it to the full extent of the law but when a government blatantly and knowingly ignores its own laws, that is just the way we do business in Canada?
How can the government say “if you don't like it, lump it because were are government and we are beyond the law”? How can it say that?
The Environment November 6th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, Canadian law is supposed to apply to everyone. Reformers are so idealistic to believe that it should even apply to the Canadian government. What a radical notion.
Now that the government has shown it is willing to break its own environmental laws to cut a business deal, why in the world would it expect any would-be polluters in Canada to obey the laws of this country?
Why is the government saying do as it says, not as it does?
Supply November 6th, 1997
Madam Speaker, Canadians are asking us to find a way to unite the country, not let them go.
The best way to unite the country is to bring economic prosperity to all and to treat all Canadians equally. The way to ensure economic prosperity is to keep tax levels lower than they are. We have the highest tax rates in the G-7. We have to get rid of the $600 billion debt and give the people of Quebec, not the politicians, more money in their pockets so they can carve out their own lives and realize their own destinies.
We do not need big government, whether it be in Quebec City or in Ottawa, telling people how to live their lives. Let us leave money in their pockets.
Supply November 6th, 1997
Madam Speaker, the most important role of the federal government is to ensure equality of provinces, to ensure that provinces are treated equally.
That does not rule out equalization. Our party agrees with equalization. We do not happen to think that three provinces should support seven.
We should also pay attention to outcomes. We should ask ourselves whether or not it has actually worked to subsidize some provinces to the degree we have. Has it created the type of prosperity that will allow them to stand on their own two feet? I would argue that it has not. If it had worked everybody in Atlantic Canada would have six jobs. Most of them cannot find one today.
Canadians disagree with the hon. member when he says that we should pour more money into spending. Recent poles indicate that people want to see the debt paid down. They want to see tax relief. Only 13% want to see some spending. Instead of spending more money in absolute terms, we should focus some of the spending, take it out of unproductive areas of which there are many in government and focus it on areas that are important to people like health care, education, and research and development.
Supply November 6th, 1997
Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member does not recall the debate a little better. One of the reasons that the Reform Party opposed this was precisely that it raised taxes in Atlantic Canada on the most vulnerable Canadians. As members of the NDP pointed out, in those provinces we were going to see an actual reduction in the cost of a yacht but on essentials like fuel for heating their homes and children's clothing we were going to see increased prices.
How can the member stand there and say that somehow this is a benefit to the people who are most vulnerable in Atlantic Canada? It is absolutely ridiculous.
I also point out to my hon. friend that part of this deal stipulates that it takes only a majority of the provinces to raise the rate for the harmonized sales tax but an absolute unanimity of all the provinces to lower it. In having a debate today about what to do with the fiscal dividend, we would need all the provinces on board to say we are going to lower that rate in order for Canadians to enjoy tax relief from the harmonized sales tax.
Why in the world would people who want to see some tax relief today stand up and support that type of deal when it essentially guarantees they will never see tax relief on the harmonized sales tax front? It is a crazy idea.