House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 33% of the vote.
Health June 11th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the health minister is making light of a very serious situation. This decision became public only because Mr. Pinon was trying to make a point.
Unfortunately, another point was made: The blood system has a problem with its screening procedures.
What specific measures is the health minister taking to protect the lives of vulnerable Canadians?
Health June 11th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, Canada's blood system has failed us again.
Mr. Joel Pinon lied about his history when he donated blood, but his lie is only part of the problem. Someone was given Mr. Pinon's blood before it was properly screened. Canadians are told that their blood system is safe but we now know it is not.
How can the health minister claim that our blood system has been fixed, when we now know that simple screening processes are being ignored?
Income Tax Act June 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, after this evening's shenanigans or Shawinigans, whatever it is, both words are synonymous, pulled by this arrogant, weak, lazy Liberal government with no vision, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak to Private Members' Bill C-502.
Bill C-502 seeks to allow mechanics to deduct the cost of tools from their income tax. It will allow them to write off the costs of a set of tools which they need to work.
This bill is virtually the same bill as one previously submitted by a Reform Party member, the hon. member for Lakeland, in the previous session. The hon. member for Elk Island spoke to that bill. Unfortunately that bill was deemed non-votable despite receiving the broad support of all opposition parties, but not the support of the arrogant, weak, lazy Liberal government with no vision.
Many mechanics, perhaps around 100,000 in Canada, are expected by their employers to provide their own tools. In fact mechanics, including auto body mechanics, cannot even apply for certain jobs unless they have their own tools. If their tools are not good tools, it may affect them in terms of their job performance. It may affect them in terms of being able to keep their job. If they do not have good tools, they may not be working under safe conditions. If their tools are not good enough or are limited in quantity, they try not to let anyone find out about it because they are afraid of losing their job.
Mr. Richard Denniston, a constituent of mine in Surrey Central, told me that auto technicians have to spend at least $20,000 on tools and upgrading their tools.
Mechanics are not like many other workers who simply show up for work with the appropriate clothing. Mechanics are special. They need to show up for work with the tools they can use and trust.
The purpose of Bill C-502 is to offer an incentive for mechanics that will encourage growth and job creation in this sector of our economy. “Give us the tools so we can do the job” is all the mechanics are saying. The bill will treat mechanics in a similar fashion, in a fair manner, as other professionals and tradespeople.
Many self-employed people are allowed to claim as deductions the items they require to provide a particular service. Doctors, dentists, lawyers, real estate agents and small business people can write off the tools of their trades, whatever they may be. They are deductible. If doctors hire additional staff, they can deduct it from their taxes. If dentists buy new equipment, they can deduct it from their taxes. It is only mechanics who cannot.
Mechanics have to use their tools to keep their jobs. Others can claim these expenses on their income tax returns, but mechanics cannot. Why would we deny mechanics the ability to obtain the proper tools, the tools they say they need to earn a living?
This is consistent with the Reform Party's tax relief policy for individuals, families and businesses. This bill would give tax relief to young people entering the job market or those making a career change for securing potential employment. The Reform Party has always supported measures that lower the tax burden of Canadians. This includes virtually any measure anytime that would force this arrogant lazy Liberal government to lower taxes instead of raising them.
Taxes have been raised by the government 37 times, to the tune of about a $42 billion increase in revenue since 1993. That comes to $2,020 per taxpayer or $1,123 per Canadian. It is a huge amount of money to those people who are working harder and harder to pay taxes to the government.
The government raised the CPP premium, the largest tax increase in Canadian history.
We also know the effect of bracket creep. It is sending tax dollars to the government's coffers when Canadians are paying taxes. High taxes kill jobs. The government balanced the budget on the backs of the taxpayers.
The government is so pleased to give subsidies to businesses. Now it is going to give subsidies to American businesses through Bill C-55 which was voted on.
I will not take much time of the House because outside the House something very important is happening. Democracy is speaking. Grassroots reformers are speaking out. They will show Canadians what grassroots democracy means. No other party in the House practises democracy.
The Reform Party supports this important noble idea as a temporary measure until the entire Income Tax Act can be reformed into a flattened and lower tax regime without exemptions.
Income Tax Act June 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I heard right, the hon. member used an hon. member's name in the House.
First Nations Land Management Act June 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, according to Standing Order 53(1)(c), which was quoted by the government House leader, no member may speak more than once, nor longer than 10 minutes. It is not per party, Mr. Speaker. It is written here very clearly that no member may speak more than once, nor longer than 10 minutes.
One member has spoken for 10 minutes. Now it is time for the next member to utilize the time allocated by the standing orders, which is 10 minutes. I would ask that you kindly look at the standing orders and have the House work accordingly.
First Nations Land Management Act June 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. According to Standing Order 53(3)(c) it is not 10 minutes per party, it is 10 minutes per member. I see more members who want to speak. I believe they should be given a chance to speak pursuant to the standing order.
Business Of The House June 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, before I ask the Thursday question of the government House leader, I take this opportunity to thank all 40 pages for their hard work in serving and helping members.
They will be retiring from here soon and we will have a new batch of pages coming in. I wish them all well and I believe they have had a memorable experience working with the members of parliament in the House.
I also take this opportunity to thank the table clerks and all staff in the House of Commons who have also worked hard. I wish everyone, all members and you, Mr. Speaker, a happy summer.
I would now like to ask the hon. government House leader the agenda for the remainder of this week and what are the plans for next week.
Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act June 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member preaching about what Canadian culture is and how it should be dealt with. She mentioned imposing culture on all Canadians. She should commend the Reform Party which believes in the equality of all citizens. We believe that every community has the right to promote their culture, but it is not up to the government to promote Canadian culture.
I ask the hon. member if taking God out of the constitution is the culture she wants to promote, as an hon. member from her party is trying to do.
Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act June 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak in opposition to Bill C-55, as well as the Senate amendments.
However, I want to speak in support of my colleague's amendment, the amendment put forward by the heritage critic of the official opposition.
Bill C-55 concerns advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers. The heritage minister, right from the beginning, has mismanaged the bill.
If enacted, the bill will prevent Canadian advertisers from advertising in foreign magazines that come into Canada. This is not a heritage matter; it is an international trade matter.
The international trade minister and the heritage minister are fighting over the issue. The trade minister wants to do his job but the heritage minister will not let him do it. She goes so far as to almost ruin our trade relations with the U.S., our greatest trading partner.
When the minister bans Canadian advertisers from selling their goods and services in foreign magazines, the minister is telling Canadian advertisers that when it comes to freedom of speech they are second class citizens. The Surrey business community which I represent should not be told how to run its business. Businesses should not be prevented from doing anything that will grow their businesses, make them more prosperous and enable them to hire more workers or maintain the present jobs they have created in the small business industry.
In the government's attempt to control the American magazine industry, it is trampling on the rights of Canadian firms from coast to coast to coast. Why should Canadian firms allow the heritage minister to dictate to them where they can or cannot advertise their goods or services?
Did the minister consider the damage that would be caused to these firms? I am sure she did not. Did the heritage minister consider the damage that would be done by the retaliation promised by the Americans if Bill C-55 is passed? I am sure she did not. She is not concerned about the fate of small businesses and their lack of advertising opportunities. Once again we are experiencing the arrogance of this weak Liberal government with no vision.
Before I go further, Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary East.
The big question is how much are these subsidies to the industry going to cost Canadian taxpayers? We asked the minister this question but did not get an answer. Canadians deserve to know the answer.
Canada's small businesses know what they need to grow and to be prosperous. They know how to run their businesses. They do not need to be dictated to and to have their freedom restricted by the government. The government continues to kill jobs in Canada.
It is not bad enough that Bill C-55 will hurt our economy and our firms, what is worse is the minister pushed the Americans into promising retaliation if Bill C-55 is enacted. She is going ahead with Bill C-55 anyway without knowing what the effect will be on Canadian businesses.
This is the same minister who insisted that she would abolish the GST in order to get elected. That promise was broken and she was forced to abandon her stubborn ways and seek re-election because the GST was a lot more powerful than she was. The business community across Canada suffers from the effect of the GST and the heritage minister has already shown us that she cannot help us with the GST problem. There should be no mistaking the American promise of a billion dollar trade embargo for a Liberal GST promise.
The Americans are not fooling. They are not desperate Liberal members of parliament who will say anything to get elected. They mean what they say. The Americans are quite serious when they say they will hurt our economy badly with trade retaliation in the steel, plastics, textiles, lumber and agricultural industries. The heritage minister has poked the American elephant with a sharp stick. The American elephant has already warned her that the American elephant does not fear mice or former rat packers.
What purpose will the minister serve with this bill if she succeeds in having Canada slammed by an American trade embargo? What is the point? What is the use of Bill C-55 if we are slammed by a trade embargo by our biggest and oldest trading partner? A billion dollars of trade a day; it is going to affect our economy.
Why is the government not more concerned about building trade rather than damaging trade? Why would the government allow the heritage minister to pursue her policy, which is Bill C-55, that promises to be so terribly destructive to our trade? Let me tell the minister that when she lives in a glass house she should not throw stones at others.
There is another important aspect I would like to bring to the attention of the House. As a multicultural country, many of our ethnic communities or minorities rely on foreign publications to keep the Canadian communities in regular communication. The heritage minister's Bill C-55 will restrict the advertising that Canadian firms can buy in these foreign publications. Why would the minister be so negligent as to penalize these diverse and sometimes small ethnic communities? These communities do not have their own newspapers, magazines or other publications.
The heritage minister has set Canada up for U.S. trade retaliation risking the jobs of thousands of Canadians and our country's standard of living. The Senate cannot fix this bill with its amendments. It cannot repair the damage done to our trade relations with the Americans because of what the heritage minister has done. When she banned Canadian advertisers from selling their goods and services in foreign magazines, the minister told Canadian advertisers that when it comes to freedom of speech they are second class citizens.
Bill C-55 should be opposed because it puts an unreasonable limit on free speech and freedom of the press. Furthermore, Bill C-55 impinges on property rights and freedom of contract as granted by the 1960 Canadian bill of rights and common law.
Bill C-55 is not worth the potential damage it will do to our economy and our job market. Bill C-55 is not worth the risk to Canada's international reputation as an advocate of rules based trade that is supported and promoted by international trade tribunals for settling trade disputes.
Therefore, I oppose this bill and I tell Canadians that this bill is damaging Canadian trade relations and Canada's trade.
Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act June 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned in his speech that 80% of magazines on the stand are foreign magazines. Let me give him some true facts.
The government has also been saying that 50% of magazines purchased in Canada are foreign magazines, but the latest numbers on readership, taking into account controlled circulation, the magazines distributed via bulk delivery, including magazines received in newspapers, show that only 4.9% of magazines read in Canada are bought off the stands.
Magazines received by paid subscription account for 35.7% of magazines read in Canada, and 59.4% of those magazines read are received through controlled circulation. Therefore, 75% of all magazines read are received by controlled circulation and 95% of those magazines are Canadian owned.
In light of these facts, I ask the hon. member once again, in dollar terms, what is the value of the subsidies they will be giving to Canadian businesses and possibly to American businesses?