House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 65% of the vote.
Government Expenditures April 24th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, if we recall, I think the debt is about $36 billion more than when they started in 1993.
Canadian business representatives call for elimination of the capital tax, an accelerated capital cost allowance and a reduction in corporate tax rates to 17%; I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, 17%.
When is the Minister of Finance going to develop sound fiscal policy that will give our Canadian business community a competitive tax advantage for a change?
Government Expenditures April 24th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, Canadian business groups are concerned about the unchecked Liberal spending. Yesterday at the first prebudget hearing they reminded the finance committee that spending on government programs grew by more than 24% since 1997.
The Minister of Finance has said that government spending should be kept in line with inflation and population growth. That is a great concept, but what happened to the minister's promise? Where is it?
Government Expenditures April 24th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, Canadian businesses are concerned about the unchecked Liberal spending. Yesterday at the first prebudget hearing--
Species at Risk Act April 16th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity today to again speak on the endangered species legislation. I would remind the House that some of us who were elected to parliament in November 1993 saw this legislation shortly afterward in a different form. The bottom line is that this legislation, in some form or another, has been kicking around parliament for seven years. I ask the rhetorical question, why has it taken so long to get it through? Who in this country could possibly stand against trying to save endangered species, the species that are at risk of becoming endangered and extinct? I do not know anyone who is against that proposal or principle. In fact we would be hard pressed to find anyone in the entire country who is, so what is the problem with getting this legislation through?
I would suggest that there are several problems. To go back to the genesis of this and the timing of discussions at the Rio de Janeiro conference in 1992, the then government of the day, Brian Mulroney's administration, not only agreed to protect endangered species through the agreement on biodiversity but agreed that greenhouse gases were polluting the planet and should be addressed as well. Out of that, the Liberal government of the day inherited these two issues and, I would suggest, has done an absolutely terrible job in managing these issues. If there is a need to protect the planet from the warming problem presented by greenhouse gases and if there is a need to protect endangered species, I would suggest that it has been very badly handled by the Liberal government.
Let me move on to talk about how I see the Liberals operating. Why has it taken seven years to get the bill through? Because, I believe, they are very insincere about the total motive in presenting this. I would suggest that not only does it show up here. They like to put window dressing on it and instead of looking at it as a serious problem they pretend they are doing something when in fact they are not. We have seen it with Kyoto and that will fail. They waste the public's time and a tremendous amount of money by putting forward insincere proposals with window dressing to make it look like they are doing something when in fact they are not.
Why are they having a problem getting the endangered species legislation through? I will raise this again: because they do not have co-operation from the user groups in the country, the very people who have to be part of the solution to this problem, the farmers, ranchers, forest companies and resource development agencies. Also, they do not have the co-operation of aboriginal people in huge areas of the country where the co-operation is needed. In fact, in the Group No. 4 motions on the bill we now see that they have rejected the idea of an aboriginal council. They have rejected the idea of co-operation with user groups such as farmers.
My riding of Peace River is mainly an agricultural riding. The second largest industry is forestry and the third is the oil and gas sector. They control huge parts of the Peace River riding. We are talking about over 100,000 square miles. If we do not have co-operation on this kind of legislation from user groups, how on earth are there going to be enough regulatory and police authorities to regulate the industry in that area of northwestern Alberta? It is simply not possible.
Let us look at the alternative. The alternative is to have co-operation, not confrontation. We know there are certain systems at work. We have had the example of the Ducks Unlimited approach by a group of sports hunters. This group started in the United States and has expanded to Canada and is saying that there is a reduced amount of waterfowl, of ducks and geese.
The people who wanted to hunt said they recognized there was a big problem and there had to be some kind of plan for conservation of these species or otherwise they would be gone. They worked with landowners, with ranchers and farmers, and asked them to take some of their land out of production for a year to allow for waterfowl to nest in those areas. They offered to pay them for doing that and found they had a great amount of co-operation. I suggest that if we do not have co-operation, if we expect the landowners, the few farmers and ranchers left in this country, to carry the burden of the total cost of this program, it will not work.
If 30 million Canadians want to protect endangered species, and that seems to be the goal, should not 30 million Canadians share the cost of doing so? I think they should. I think that is a workable program. It is a proven formula that Ducks Unlimited has used. It is a proven formula that was used in the United States and Great Britain where there are huge trusts and land is bought to protect the environment and the species there. Individuals pay into those trusts and help to administer them.
Why do we not use that kind of an approach instead of the heavy-handed approach that the government seems bent on using? It is a failed model from the United States. We have seen 30 years of failure in its endangered species legislation because it has used the heavy-handed approach with the stick rather than the carrot. We know that it has actually backfired. Some endangered species have been sped to that fate along the way because the very people administering the program, the user groups, are saying that if they are to be hit with a $1 million fine, there will not be any endangered species on their land. The old story is that they get rid of them. It is exactly the wrong approach to use. The Liberal government seems to have learned nothing from the United States. The government still seems bent on this confrontational approach, which will not work.
I want to give the House an example of one approach I have seen first-hand in the farming area I represent in the Peace River country of Alberta. Our farm is just outside of Grande Prairie. Ten years ago the power company wanted to build a huge high voltage power line to service some of the oil industry. The Alberta government said the power company could use that route, but there was a problem. The trumpeter swans nest on the lake there. When the cygnets are learning how to fly they go out and fly their circuits with their parents to build up their wings in order to make the flight deep into the United States to Texas.
By the way, this bird was on the endangered species list at one time. Dr. Bernard Hamm, a naturalist living in our area, single-handedly started a co-operative approach to protect that very bird. The population was down to 50 worldwide. Dr. Hamm and others, working with the farmers and ranchers in the area in a co-operative effort, have restored the trumpeter swan to tens of thousands in number now in just over 50 years.
The Alberta government told the power company that was going to build that huge transmission line that it could only build the line along the lakeshore if it planted some trees there. In other words, when these young birds are learning how to fly they have to be able to clear the power line. The company was told to begin by planting trees that would not grow too high, then taller ones and then even taller ones so that the flight angle would be such that the birds could clear the power line. The power company said it could plant the trees there. I remember when they brought in the big trees and spades and planted all the trees. Five years later, what had happened? Because this is a very low, boggy area along the lakefront, all the trees died. In the meantime the power line is there. The power line will never go away. The power company complied with a silly regulation.
I think that is an exact example of the silly regulation that the government is pursuing, regulation that is not designed to get co-operation from the users who have to be part of the solution. Instead of addressing this issue in a manner that is designed to protect the species, the government has decided to be part of the problem by using a confrontational approach. There is no compensation for landowners who are not only protecting the species on their land but protecting the habitat. Does that make any sense?
On our farm there are wild crocuses growing. Who knows, they could be on the endangered species list next year. They have spores that fly all over the place and root in different spots. If that means that they root in areas of my land we currently cultivate, then that land is no longer available to my family and me because we then would have to protect that endangered species and its habitat. Our family is expected to bear the brunt of taking hundreds of acres of land out of production so that others can enjoy this endangered species. I see nothing wrong with that if others are prepared to pay, but they are not, not under this legislation.
I think if we used a co-operative approach we would find out that taxpayers in this country are prepared. The Liberal government is taking the wrong approach with the confrontational approach. We should be able to pay landowners to compensate them for protecting the very species we all value.
Pest Control Products Act April 15th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, my colleague the hon. member for Red Deer summed up the issue pretty well. However I have a question for him.
I am a farmer. Our farm has belonged to my family since 1911. Pesticides and insecticides are part of the tools we use to manage our farm. If our competitors have a product we do not have, why can Canada not be a bit more progressive in trying to harmonize our products with those of the United States, our closest neighbour and one of our biggest competitors in agriculture? If the United States goes through a review process why should Canada have to conduct the same review process all over again, which may delay the availability of the chemical to Canadian farmers for up to five years afterwards?
Is there not a method of harmonizing the tests required for new chemicals so that once they are approved for farmers in the United States they are approved for farmers in Canada as well?
Leadership Campaigns April 9th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, that is interesting. The ethics counsellor has no credibility with Canadians and none with the members of the House, except for those who hide behind his rulings.
The ethics counsellor has a perfect record of never having found anyone in breach of the so-called Liberal code of ethics. He is batting 1,000. However, if the minister is so confident in the ethics counsellor, will he table in its entirety Mr. Wilson's written ruling regarding the investigation into this murky relationship?
Leadership Campaigns April 9th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance invoked the ethics counsellor's ruling when I asked about Calgary lawyer Jim Palmer, who was raising money for the minister's leadership campaign while working for the Department of Finance. That simply is not good enough.
Will the minister clear the air today by tabling a list of those who Mr. Palmer consulted on behalf of the Department of Finance and a list of firms and individuals who donated to the minister's leadership campaign?
Leadership Campaigns April 8th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, that is encouraging to hear. I thank the minister for his kind words.
I would also like to give the minister the opportunity today to clear up the working relationship between his department and Calgary Liberal fundraiser Jim Palmer.
How will the Minister of Finance assure Canadians that this was not a conflict of interest, or was Mr. Palmer really selling tax policy in order to raise money for the minister's leadership campaign?
The Debt April 8th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, in budget 2001 the Minister of Finance made no projections for debt repayment even though Canadians are paying $107 million a day on interest payments on the federal debt. Now that the economy is turning around and the surplus is expected to be larger than projected, will the Minister of Finance take this opportunity to send an early signal to Canadians as to how much he plans to pay down on the debt this year?
The Economy March 15th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, even alcoholics know that the first step to recovery is to admit that they have a problem.
Instead of blaming others, the Liberal government must own up to its failed policies of the last 30 years. For example, I want to quote that famous economist, our Prime Minister. “I have said many times that the Canadian dollar has to float downwards” he said in February 1978. In 1984 he said “I can personally live with a weaker dollar”. Now the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to blame Canadian businesses for the Liberal government's failed policies.
Why can the government not just take the first step to recovery and admit that the Prime Minister's policies were dead wrong?