Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are debating a very serious government bill that will affect certain parts of the country, yet the government is not here to listen.
I do not believe we have a quorum.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 46% of the vote.
Canadian Wheat Board Act November 19th, 1997
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are debating a very serious government bill that will affect certain parts of the country, yet the government is not here to listen.
I do not believe we have a quorum.
Drinking Water Materials Safety Act November 18th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a very important debate. We are talking about the federal intrusion of provincial jurisdiction and I do not see a quorum here. In fact, I even have trouble seeing the government sitting in this House to hear this debate.
Supply November 6th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member and I sympathize with her.
When the tax was debated in the House I remember speaking against the BST being introduced in the Atlantic provinces. I did not call it the BST but I did use two of those initials. I may have dropped the t a few times.
Many things were said by the government. Actually, its members were the official opposition when the GST was brought in. At that time Liberals said that public and private libraries would have to reduce the purchase of books and newspapers by about 10% annually because of the GST. The present Prime Minister said that.
The minister of finance said at that time that the goods and services tax was a stupid, inept, incomplete and incompetent tax.
All through the debate today we have heard about hypocrisy. I would think that this is the height of it. Now we have the Prime Minister saying it is his personal tax and how much he loves it. When he leaves the country and talks to other leaders around the world, he brags about how he introduced it and not the Conservatives.
I know the hon. member was not in the House during the time of the BST and the debate in this House. I wish she had been here. Perhaps we would have had more help. I do not recall hearing from her party at that time. I would like to know if anybody from the east has put into dollars and cents how much the blended sales tax has really cost the people back home.
Supply November 6th, 1997
Madam Speaker, I cannot help but sit here and chuckle over the word hypocrisy coming from the opposite; hypocrisy, the finest word the government has every used and abused to the Canadian taxpayer.
It was not that long ago, but it is kind of short in the memories of some of the Liberal members, who had to resign their seat over the misrepresentation of the GST.
The Liberal government, to the member from the Bloc, seems to forget that it campaigned to get rid of the GST. It sold that bill of goods to the people of Canada. I imagine it did the same in Quebec.
When we were debating the harmonization of the GST in the Atlantic provinces I can remember standing up in the House and giving a speech on the problems this would create in the Atlantic provinces. We all know that when governments start talking about harmonization, if you take the front part of the word it is harm. It harms the citizens of the country. It does not matter where this is tried. It found this out in the Atlantic provinces.
I would like the hon. member from the Bloc to answer a question. Who was in provincial power at the time harmonization took place in Quebec? Were they also led down the garden path by the government in power at the time?
Supply November 6th, 1997
Madam Speaker, I could not help but listen intently to the very informative speech from my hon. colleague.
Out west there is a little parasite. It gets onto human beings and livestock and will suck the lifeblood right out of you. We call it a tick. I often wonder if maybe it got its name from politics, from governments trying to suck the lifeblood out of people through taxation.
We know that basically we work more than six months out of the year just to pay taxes in this country. That means out of every eight hours that a person works, four hours are going to pay taxes in order to keep the governments of our country going.
Does the hon. member think it is fair for the people of this country to work so hard and put in the time that they do to pay over 50% back in taxes to the government to absolutely squander in any way it sees fit without having any input from the taxpayers themselves?
Supply October 30th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
There is hardly anyone today who has not been affected in one form or another by the misuse of alcohol.
The survivors and some victims have to live with this forever. I can speak on that from a personal point of view. I do not think a week or even two days or nights go by that the memory of that child does not flash into my mind. I can never get rid of it. I have to live with that.
My wife lives with the fact that her career changed at that time also. She chose to give up a well paying job and career advancements in order to be by my side in the Haney hospital. While it affected us to a great extent, I cannot imagine what that child's grandparents had to live with for the rest of their lives. My brother-in-law John was another victim of that accident. He sustained head injuries in the accident that he still suffers with today.
An accident does not just affect the people who are involved, there are lot more victims that we hear nothing about. We pay far too little attention to them when we make some of the decisions in this place.
Supply October 30th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, before I get into my speech I wish to inform the Chair that I will be splitting my time with the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.
I am privileged to stand here in support of the motion of the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.
As I studied politics and took an interest in politics in Canada and around the world, I realized one thing. People who are elected to govern or sit in opposition have one primary responsibility that overrides all else. It is for the safety and well-being of its law-abiding citizens.
That is what we are trying to do today. We are trying to form a motion that can proceed and pass in this House in order to protect the legal, law-abiding citizens in our country.
We all know, from the things that have been said so far, that tragic things are happening to individuals and to families right across Canada because of criminals who drink and drive. I call them criminals because I want everybody to recognize one thing, that making the decision to drink and drive, whether it is a boat, a car or an airplane, is like picking up a weapon. It is a life threatening act which could kill or maim the driver, the passengers, other drivers and their passengers. It can ruin the lives of their families and friends who must deal with the tragedy. It can possibly affect many innocent bystanders.
I am going to get a little personal on this issue. I was not going to. Normally I like to speak to everybody involved on anything that is personal. I have not had time to speak to my wife because I was not going to bring personal happenings into this today, but I think I must.
When I was 23 years of age, my wife then was 18, I was on the way to the wedding of my future brother-in-law. My job was to pick up the flowers to take to the wedding. Another brother-in-law of mine was in the car too. On the way a vehicle turned into our path. I was the driver of our vehicle. John, my brother-in-law, was the passenger.
At the time of impact I remember seeing a small child come through the window of the vehicle that hit us. I will always remember seeing the impact of that child on the hood of my car. That is the last thing I remembered for a long time. I was in the hospital for nine months. My pancreas was ripped and my liver was ripped off and my career was changed forever.
My wife Cis spent many months, because of under-insurance of the other driver involved, picking strawberries and fruit in order to be on the coast—because we were from the interior—to stay with me through all of this.
I never got a chance to really talk to the other driver. Alcohol was involved. The other driver had been drinking but not enough to be charged with impaired driving. The child involved was his grandson. That child lived but was in a coma for 19 or 21 days. The child was left a paraplegic.
Did this accident have to happen? No. When the driver, the grandfather, was asked about this, he said he could give no reason for turning into our vehicle at that time. It was a straight highway. He did not know why he turned into it. I have often wondered about that. He had been drinking at a function and he had left there to drive home with his grandson. I wondered then as I wonder now if different laws had been in place whether that child would be better off than he is today. It is quite possible. Would that grandfather have to go through the pain that he probably goes through every day now when he looks at his grandson?
One has to take all of that into consideration. My heart goes out to the families of these tragedies. Last year, just outside of Vernon where I am from, three young women from Okanagan—Shuswap decided to drive home after an evening's entertainment in Kelowna, a neighbouring community. They had gone only a few miles before they turned into the path of a logging truck. All of them were killed. Now their families, friends and loved ones have to deal with that. It is almost impossible to deal with that type of tragedy. This is all because we have a system in the country which allows judges to interpret our laws when it comes to impaired driving.
This happens in my constituency and I know it happens in other constituencies. It happens every day. As the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley stated when he spoke to the motion, 4.5 Canadians are killed every day due to impaired driving and many thousands a year are left as paraplegics or have to suffer other consequences.
It was just last week that the Mothers Against Drunk Driving visited the Hill. Its members wanted the public to become aware of a random poll which they asked the Canadian people at large. It is interesting to find out, in answer to the question: Should a driver be convicted of impaired driving causing death, would you strongly support or strongly oppose a minimum jail sentence?, that 47.9% answered they would strongly support minimum a jail sentence for impaired driving causing death, and another 37.6% answered they would support it. This adds up to a total of 85.5% who would either support or strongly support a minimum sentence.
This should send a message to us here. These are the people who pay our wages. These people put their trust in us to make the laws that will protect them. That is our job and our obligation. I believe that if we in the House work together, we can live up to that trust.
Pipelines October 28th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and Mr. Bouchard wanted the Sable Island pipeline to go through Quebec. Will the Prime Minister respect yesterday's decision of the joint environmental review panel in order to give the greatest economic benefit to the people of the maritime provinces?
Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act October 28th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I will answer the last question first. When we put these boards into place we had to be very aware that it would cost taxpayers a lot more money. It is under-resourced to handle this issue at this point in time. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Taxpayers will have to pick up that cost and we have to remember that.
As for being right 100% of the time, no. I do not think anybody in the House has ever been right 100% of the time, at least no member who is still living. I am not sure about those who have passed away. I have read many times in their speeches that they absolutely thought they were right 100% of the time, and the rest of us have had to suffer for their decisions.
One reason I am here is to make sure those who think they are right 100% of the time take a second look and maybe even a third look, a sober sincere look.
Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act October 28th, 1997
It will definitely cost more tax dollars. There is absolutely no doubt about that. It will cost a fair amount in more tax dollars for more uncertainty. That is exactly what we are doing.