Darrel Stinson

[Division No. 72, February 12th, 1998]

What is wrong with that?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, Shuswap is actually a great place to live other than that we are being taxed to death out there, and I can say that with confidence. That is one thing. No matter where we go across Canada one of the main problems we are faced with in any meeting is overtaxation to fill the appetite of this government and previous governments for taxation.

I get a kick out of the concern I hear from the Liberals and the Conservatives. All of a sudden they are concerned about the people and taxation. We should never forget that there have only basically been two parties in power, the Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party. Who is responsible for the mess we are in today? It has to be the Liberals and the Conservatives. Nobody else has been in power.

That is reality, no matter what people hear from them when they knock on doors in upcoming elections. They get down on their knees, they raise their hands and they swear that they have learned their lessons. They have never learned their lessons. They have never in the history of Canadian politics learned their lessons.

They have learned how to expand on one and the other's failures. That is what they have learned. That is what we are paying for today. Unfortunately that is what our children will be paying for in the future. The question today is what are we willing to leave our children in future. With Bill C-28 we will not be leaving them very much. The Liberals could go a long way toward helping our people. They could give them a break so the people could stand on their own.

I had the opportunity in my riding of Okanagan—Shuswap to send out a householder. I asked the voters questions. I know that the Liberals, the Conservatives and the New Democrats laugh at us when we send out householders to get input from the public. I can hear them heckling me. That is the problem with the old line politicians. They are afraid to put questions to the people who pay their wages. That is a shame.

I would like to read a response which I received. It comes from a woman named Debby Cook. She has given me permission to read her letter today. Mrs. Cook wrote:

My husband and I supported you in the last election and so far we are not disappointed.

Your questionnaire doesn't really let us voters define exactly our opinions. Therefore I included this letter in hopes you will read it, and maybe get a better understanding of how the average income family feels.

To clarify average income, that's about $30,000 to $40,000 a year. It may sound like a lot, but look at the figures. Our income is already taxed to the max.

My husband has to work like a dog just to keep our heads above water, and that's without children or anything for entertainment.

Even if I was working, the burden would be more. Sure during the year it would work a little better, but without having me as a tax write-off—

It is a shame when we have to start looking at ourselves as tax write-offs. She continued:

—the beginning of the year would look pretty grim.

We would wind up paying every year, and still have to have my husband's cheques docked, with almost half of it going to a government that I'm not sure I believe in any more.

We may have a democracy, but because of high taxes, and lavish government spending, the government does indeed dictate the outcome of every year.

There was a time that a person could plan for vacations every year, which are so greatly needed, so you don't lose your mind.

My husband and I can't afford to go on vacations, so he works and works and works, just so the government can live lavishly, while we peons, at the bottom, go without any satisfaction or restitution.

So, you may ask if we think taxes should be increased for the pension?

No, absolutely not!

Instead, why not cut MPs large pensions and the gross amount of their salaries?

Our forefathers did not create a working government so they could line their pockets, but only so there was some form of representation in a united Canada.

These values have long since been forgotten, or upheld since Trudeau. He started it, and the rest followed. Now look what we've become. Split and divided in every direction.

In the next part I asked my constituents if they thought their family could afford to pay more taxes. One of the examples I gave was in order to cut emissions from burning fossil fuels. Mrs. Cook also had some ideas on that kind of tax. She wrote:

You ask if there should be a tax added or an increase on our gasoline to help cutting emissions. Okay, there is a problem here but not one that can be rectified by raising costs.

More and more families are having to buy second hand cars that are in the 1970s and 1980s. These cars are not as well protected against these problems.

If the taxes on gas are driven even higher there will be no help, only hindrance. We need taxes lowered so that we can afford to buy new vehicles. What doesn't the government get? Wake up and smell the coffee.

I then asked the voters in my riding how they thought the government should spend the so-called fiscal dividend, presuming there will be some money left from today's high taxes after the books are balanced. Mrs. Cook wrote on that topic as follows:

You ask if Ottawa should use fiscal dividends. Why not spread it out and treat people with some respect? Give back to the people that which they have given for so long. Then maybe the question on whether our government is out to screw us would be answered. Show us how hard work and patience can pay off. Give us a break.

Mrs. Cook ended her letter as follows:

Thank you for reading this letter. I am sure you will make good use of our taxpayers dollars.

It was signed:

Just one of your concerned citizens,

Debby Cook.

That is one of hundreds of letters that I received as a result of the questionnaire. This lady is not alone. Her concerns are the concerns of average people, hard working people and honest people across this land. They are fed up with governments telling them to tighten their belts while governments seem to increase three or four sizes every year.

When they work like they do they learn that they have very little say in a country that is supposed to be run democratically. We know that is no longer so. It may sound cynical to the people out there when I say this, but I say in all honesty that I have not seen the country run democratically for a long time.

Let us look at the Income Tax Act. When it was introduced it was a one time act. “Come to us. Believe in us”, said the government of the day. It was only to enact it once but it forget to say that it would be once a year. On and on it goes.

The government wonders why the people out there are so cynical about politicians today. That is one of the main reasons. It is time the government wakes up to that fact before it is too late.

[Privilege, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I was not in my chair at the time this took place. There were some words exchanged. I left the seat over there to come over here.

I cannot raise a point of order until I sit in my proper seat. Is that not the rule of the House? So I came across here to raise a point of order on what was being said because the language that was being used was not acceptable in this House. This is when it all happened, Mr. Speaker.

[Westray Mine, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the first duty of any government is to protect its law-abiding citizens. Instead neither the province nor the federal government made sure that the men who went underground to mine coal at Westray came home safely each day.

According to the book The Westray Tragedy , CANMET recommended a more in-depth evaluation of the project. Over 100 men previously killed in the Foord coal seam should have been reason enough for governments to be extra cautious about Westray. So why did the federal government suddenly give its stamp of approval through loan guarantees? If the federal government had no worry for the safety of citizens working at Westray, why did it not even ensure that its investments could be recovered through long term safe and profitable operation of the Westray mine?

The report released yesterday reveals a chain of obvious preventable safety problems. As project financier, Ottawa must share the blame for turning the federally assisted job project into a tomb, a mine so unsafe that 11 bodies have yet to be recovered, and a whole region in Nova Scotia remains in mourning.

[Donkin Mine, November 21st, 1997]

It has no business sense and it never has had any. I find that rather amusing coming from the Conservatives. It seems that a lot of these problems started when the Conservatives were in power.

We come back to the same thing. We know that mining is extremely important to Canada. It employs a large number of people, not only in the maritimes but right across Canada.

We know that coal will be under scrutiny here in this Kyoto agreement this government has decided to go into. So we have many problems in the coal industry right now due to government intrusion.

We have to realize that in many instances the private sector is better at looking after the needs of the people in the communities. All businesses have to make a profit in order to survive. It is that simple.

When we have to compete in the world marketplace we have to understand that. We are competing in a world market, not just among ourselves. Therefore when I see mismanagement of Canadian taxpayer dollars to the sums I see in here under Devco I have to seriously question the sanity of the governments involved. I do not think I am the only one to question the sanity. I think the taxpayers question it.

To sum up, I think the mining communities and the taxpayers of this country are tired of getting the lousy shaft from the governments which have run this country and it is time to get us back on the right track of producing and surviving.

[Donkin Mine, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take action to develop the Donkin mine as a crown corporation.

I have said before, and I will say it again, that I believe mining falls under provincial jurisdiction and not under federal jurisdiction. Government intrudes far too often in provincial areas and it keeps on doing it.

Let us take a look at what is happening with regard to Devco.

One problem that Devco had was that it was saddled with the unfunded liabilities of its predecessor, Dominion Coal, including some $77.5 million for pensions, $117 million to clean up acid water drainage, reclaim tailings, and workmen compensation claims.

It went along not too badly, as was mentioned by the member from the Conservative Party, with regard to the shipment of coal overseas. This worked out all right until the government representative for Devco decided to torpedo any exports of coal. One main reason they had was Phalen was to come on board and supply coal to Nova Scotia power.

At that time I questioned the feasibility of cancelling any overseas contracts we had with regard to coal. Once an overseas contract is cancelled, it is very difficult to get that share of the marketplace back.

We know that there is a private group which has put forward an offer for the Donkin mines. It is currently being reviewed by the Senate. There was some $400,000 spent on a feasibility study done by John T. Boyd Co. from the United States. Out of that $300,000 came toward the study from ACOA, and $100,000 was put up by the company. It makes us wonder what kind of private development we are really talking about.

Will the taxpayers be left totally holding the bag for the demise of Devco with no other resources and all the liabilities for the environmental clean-up and the unfunded pension liabilities of past employees? These are questions that have to be asked.

We know that the Senate in its hearings is going through the offer and the feasibility study. We know that the minister will be testifying before the Senate, I believe on December 1. We also know at this time that there is nothing going on at Donkin.

This is a serious question. The taxpayers of this country have put hundreds of millions of dollars into these projects. It raises the question of who is better at this. the private sector or the government. Time after time we have seen the mismanagement of public funds by government. We have to wonder how long we can keep on funding corporations such as this to make decisions like this.

Let us look at this reasonably. Does anyone think a private company would shut down its export markets? Not a hope. But what does the government body do? It shuts down the export market and creates a problem. That alone should tell us that the government has no business there.

[The Senate, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, getting kicked out of the Liberal caucus is more of a reward than a punishment. Now the senator does not need to fight any feelings of guilt for missing the caucus meetings while he is wasting away in Margaritaville.

The prime minister claims the right of appointing senators. Will he do Canadian taxpayers a favour and give senators who collect their salary but do not show up for work a dis-appoint?

[The Senate, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the prime minister has showed that he has finally had enough. He raised the attendance bar for senators to 2.2%, and Senator Thompson tripped over it. Does he have any intention of raising the Senate attendance bar even higher, say to 5%, to 10% or how about a mind boggling 20%?

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss Motion No. 2.

I am having a great problem with everything in this bill. Let us take a look at the clause. This clause makes the Canadian Wheat Board Act binding on the provinces. This would block a province from making changes demanded by a majority of its farmers. Correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Speaker.

It was not quite two weeks ago, November 11, when I happened to speak at a function on a day called Remembrance Day in this country of Canada. While I was there I talked to many of the old vets. Many of them were farmers. Many of them still have children on the farm in the prairies.

I have to wonder just exactly what they fought for. They fought to be independent, to be allowed to make their own decisions and to freely sell their products in this country. Everybody seems to be able to do that except western farmers.

In Ontario the board members are freely elected. With this bill the board in the west will have ten elected members and five who will be appointed by the government. They will be patronage appointments, including the president and the CEO.

There is only one message that a person can take from this. The government does not think that our farmers are capable of managing their own affairs. The government needs positions in which to put its friends, relatives and defeated candidates.

Farmers are not silly. It will not take them long to realize that all the rats are not in the granary when they look at what the government is trying to impose upon them.

These are the people who have spent literally hours, more than many members of this House are willing to put in, trying to scrape together a living, only to have the government intrude in every facet of their lives.

We know that under socialism the object is that the farmer grows the product, keeps part of it and the government takes the rest. Under communism the government just takes it. Under liberalism farmers will not only buy product in order to seed the field, they will not only care for the product, they will not only cut it, harvest it and get it to the shipyards, but they will be told who they can sell it to, where they can sell it, at what price they can sell it and what route it will take.

When farmers go broke, our caring, sharing Liberal government says “That is too bad”. The farmers are not given any handout. They do not get a bit of help. I have to wonder how long the farmers will put up with this. I would suggest not too long.

This bill would block a province from making changes demanded by a majority of its farmers. Who the heck does the government think has spent the time to get the product ready? It sure as heck was not the government or any of its members.

The government refuses to allow not only farmers but the majority of citizens in this country to work for profit. The government fully recognizes that the biggest threat to that side of the House is a farmer or any other businessperson who can stand up and say they are independent.

The government will do everything in the world to block any fashion of businessperson in this country from being able to say that because it knows full well that when a person can stand and say they are independent they no longer have to depend on the government.

Yet that is one of the functions that we were taught very young in school. When I went it was that the harder someone would work, the better they produce, the earlier they could retire.

It is bills like this that make that impossible. Today the harder the farmer works, the more he is penalized. Does that make any sense? It does not. Does it make any sense to the government opposite? Yes, I see some nods over there that it does. I have to wonder is the government in place to govern for the people or to the people. I see over there it is to the people, not for the people.

Again I have to wonder why our farmers, along with other parts of society, took up arms in order to protect a so-called democratic society.

We see today that it is a total farce. There is no such thing in this country any more. We have to look at some of the functions that farmers play. These are the people who will feed the people and their families, but not as long as they are being driven out of business, not as long as they cannot get the best price they can for the product, not as long as they are told who they can sell to, when they can sell and how much they can charge.

This is not what farming was all about, yet farming was one of the basic institutions that built this country.

They can sit there opposite and smile because they know it will not directly affect them. They will allow other parts of Canada to become independent and allow them to freely elect the members of their board who will make the decision on how they will make their livelihood. They will do that but not out west. God help us if we ever get that decision. The farmer may be able to put a few dollars in his pocket when he goes to town so that he can afford to buy new clothes for his family for a change.

I have to wonder just how far this government is willing to go to make sure every facet of society is kept broke.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 19th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are debating an important piece of legislation which will affect farmers out west, and again members of the government have not shown up in the House. I am calling for a quorum.