Lost his last election, in 2004, with 36% of the vote.
Rights Of Victims April 21st, 1997
We are against the confiscation of lawfully held property by the government without compensation.
Now the government is falling over itself to pass anti-gang legislation for Quebec before the Prime Minister calls the election this Sunday.
Could the Minister of Justice explain why the victims bill of rights has languished in his office for more than a year when it could benefit all Canadians? Why has that bill not received the same high priority he is giving to the anti-gang legislation?
Rights Of Victims April 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice knows very well the Reform Party is not against gun control. We are against the confiscation-
Parliament Of Canada Act April 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak for a few minutes on the bill of my colleague from Kindersley-Lloydminster on fixed election dates.
I did promise a constituent who takes an avid interest in this subject that I would bring up what he sees as a downside of fixed election dates and discuss that for a few moments.
He argues that fixed election dates will cause a slowdown in the economy from six, nine to twelve months ahead of the election date because businesses and people who are making investment decisions will hold off making those decisions until they see the outcome of the election.
He also feels that fixed election dates would not stop governments from playing politics because knowing when the election date would be it would save up its initiatives or its special plans until it was close to the election day so it would still be able to manipulate the agenda to suit its own interests.
There seems to be some credibility to his arguments if you take a look at the New Zealand situation last October. A few years ago New Zealand introduced a law that the government must notify the electorate six months ahead of the election date. In New Zealand it is now known six months prior to an election when that date will be. During the six months leading up to the election the government is required to release the public accounts. Incidentally, standard accounting practice is used for that so someone can actually tell what the state of the economy is instead of the manipulated sort of figures that we tend to get here.
Because of all of that information coming out during that time an element of uncertainly develops. Quite clearly there was a slowdown in the New Zealand economy during that six month period. The number of jobs advertised dropped off, the amount of reinvestment dropped off and the dollar weakened slightly as well.
It did pick up after the election. The economy was rejuvenated and suddenly the job situation picked up dramatically. Last week there were 22.5 pages of jobs advertised in just Auckland city alone in one of the local newspapers. Everything picked up again dramatically right after the election but the point the gentleman brought to my attention seems to have been played out in New Zealand.
What we have to weigh, when looking at the overall situation, is whether the benefits of having a fixed election date outweigh any downside that might come from knowing that date in advance. My personal opinion is that they do because on balance certainty is always better for the economy than uncertainty. The New Zealand example may have been an aberration because the United States has fixed election dates. They know when things are going to happen and it does not seem from the evidence that I have that there is a major impact on the economy in slowdowns or speed-ups based on an fixed election date.
Perhaps the experience that was brought to my attention by my constituent may have been an aberration. As people get used to a new system where they actually know the election date, over a period of time it will not be quite as important. When you look at the balance, the opposite side of actually knowing that date, giving the certainty to business that a decision will be made on a certain date and they can get on with their plans, I think we still have to go for that fixed election date.
It also gives pressure groups and the electorate the opportunity to works toward that date with any projects that have to be completed, any political efforts or persuasions that need to be done.
As promised, I have put my constituent's point of view to the House today. On balance, I would recommend to my colleagues that they vote for this bill because I think the overwhelming evidence in speeches before me has pointed that there would be a tremendous benefit for the people of Canada.
The Liberals April 18th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, just like the old line patronage ridden parties before it, this government is digging deep into the taxpayer trough so that it can hand out hundreds of millions of dollars of other people's money to last minute pre-election goodies for Liberal ridings.
If we add the cost of the election to the cost of the handouts and the cost of the MP pensions for the 30 or so Liberals who are deserting a sinking ship, Canadians are probably going to be out about $1 billion for this folly.
Other than being an excuse to shower Liberal ridings with largesse, could the government please explain the purpose of the upcoming early June election.
Banff National Park April 18th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Canadian Heritage released her plan for the Bow Valley, but in her haste to pander to the demands of some vocal special interest groups, she could well be cutting off access to, and quiet enjoyment of, the park for the elderly and disabled.
If the Bow Valley Parkway is closed to all automobile traffic, those who can no longer, or never could, hike or walk long distances, will be deprived of the opportunity to enjoy some birdwatching, a picnic lunch or a short stroll in an alpine meadow.
What is the use of a national park if it is reserved only for use by speciality hikers and those who do not mind being crammed into a crowded bus for a quick trip through the woods?
If speed or too much traffic is the problem, surely we could restrict the speed limit or the number of vehicles going through the Bow Valley Parkway each day. That is the way it is being done in the Grand Canyon national park.
On behalf of the regular users of the park who alerted me to this problem, I urge the heritage minister to please reject any complete closure of the Bow Valley Parkway. While she is at it, could she please confirm whether there is any truth to the rumour that she is building-
Privilege April 18th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton has raised a very important point in his question of privilege. Private Members' Business is a when we bring material to this House which we take very seriously.
The fact that I cancelled my appearance today on a private member's bill was actually done as a form of protest because my bill is non-votable.
The member for Sarnia-Lambton has a votable piece of material, and notwithstanding the Standing Orders and a ruling that you might make in connection with that, I would also like to suggest that perhaps in the process that is going on here we may be able to get unanimous consent of the House to do a substitution and to meet the needs of the hon. member.
The Budget March 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I thought it was worth mentioning again a part of the speech that the hon. member brought to our attention. It is something that is so easy to forget: that members of the Reform Party made a commitment that they would not take the gold plated pension plan that members of the government side took for themselves.
I would like to ask the member if she could cover a little bit of that ground once again to remind the Canadian public of that commitment, we are not in this place for our long term pensions. We are here because we truly believe that what Reform stands for can make this a better country.
The Budget March 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, he asked so many questions. It is ridiculous for the member to say that a company like Bombardier which makes $406 million profit needs any money. It does not need a single cent and it is an outrage that this member has been brainwashed, I would have to say, by the spin doctors upstairs who have convinced him that company that makes $406 million should be given $97 million of taxpayer money.
He also made the comment that if we give tax cuts there will be less taxes coming in. Of course there will. The member does not get it yet. Canadians are asking for smaller government. Smaller government does not need as much tax. That is the whole idea and that is why people are so supportive of the Harris government, of the Klein government. They are doing what people want. They are making government smaller and any opportunities that are coming in Ontario are a direct result of the Harris government actions. They are not a result of this government's actions.
When he talks about students going south because there are no expansion opportunities in Waterloo, that again is related to taxes. Companies are moving out of his area. They are taking jobs away
from that area because the taxes are too high. The member should go back to his riding, listen to his constituents and look at the facts. Taxes in Canada are too high. It is a job killer.
The Budget March 21st, 1997
Luckily it is not. On the top there is a computer disk which contains the material in electronic form.
What are these 650 pages of material about? They are about the western economic diversification fund. It is a big propaganda package that is supposed to convince me that the Liberal propaganda machine is something worthwhile having.
There are summaries of press releases from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Half of it is being sent to western MPs in French as well. About the only piece of frugal work in the whole package is the letter from the deputy minister which is actually double sided instead of using two sheets. Everything else is a complete and utter waste of taxpayers' money. There are brochures in French going to MPs in the western ridings.
As soon as I am done my speech today this package is going straight back to the minister. What a waste of money. It is a good example of why the government is over budget on departmental spending.
I can give another example. Yesterday there was a meeting of the heritage committee. One of the matters to be discussed in camera was a new trip around the country, a junket for the people on the heritage committee. What were they to do on this junket? They were to study Canadian culture and try to define it. They were to go to Vancouver, Calgary and Montreal. They were to define Canadian culture. That is like trying to define love or why a cat is a cat. What a ridiculous, stupid exercise.
How much was it to cost? If that had been discussed and passed yesterday, $214,000 of taxpayers' money would have gone down the tubes. If we really need to define Canadian culture, ask people to write us some letters and tell us. We do not need to spend $214,000. No wonder the budget estimates are over budget.
Another example is a letter I received from a constituent. He mentions that according to the attached news report last year Bombardier made a profit of $313 million. In its current fiscal year the Liberal government has made Bombardier a grant of $97 million. That figure is from page 878 of Hansard . This constituent reads Hansard religiously so he has all his ducks in a row.
Adding the $313 million profit and the $97 million grant gives us a $410 million figure. This year ending January 31 Bombardier reported a profit of $406.2 million. Is that not a coincidence? Most of the additional profit came in the form of a grant. Should it be taxable or non-taxable? It is another propaganda give away from the Minister of Industry and a good example of why departmental spending is over budget.
I have another example. The Liberals have been saying how wonderful their budget is and that everybody is falling over themselves with praise for what they have done, conveniently forgetting as I mentioned earlier in the day the $600 billion debt which at the moment costs us about $50 billion a year in interest. If the interest rate went up 1 per cent it would add $6 billion more to that figure; 2 per cent would add $12 billion; and 3 per cent would $18 billion. If we had a 5 per cent jump the whole thing would be totally out of control. We would have the crisis the member before me mentioned we were close to in 1993.
We are not out of the woods yet. If this government had adopted the zero in three plan which Reform promoted in the last election we would be running surpluses today. We would be arguing in this House what to do with the surplus money, like Alberta is doing today, instead of discussing a $19 billion deficit.
Only Liberals would think that a $19 billion deficit is something to be celebrated. When we have a $19 billion surplus we can have a party. However, a $19 billion deficit, give me a break.
Another of my constituents wrote me a letter: "Last October, I was lucky enough to receive a $300 per month raise in pay. My wife and I considered ourselves fortunate and looked forward to being able to remodel the kitchen. When my end of January pay arrived, there did not seem to be any extra money in there".
We are not surprised at that because, when my constituent analyzed his paycheque, he found that from the original $300 raise, $162.60 went to income tax and $129.96 went to increased CPP and UI deductions. He ended up with $7.44.
A Liberal answer to that would be borrow the money because interest rates are low. We have these wonderful interest rates. That is typical Liberal speak, Liberal think. There is a benefit in borrowing money.
Does that sound familiar? They started it in the 1970s. Look at the hole they dug for us, the debt hole they dug for us by taking the attitude that borrowing money was good, that there would be a benefit by borrowing money. Absolute rubbish.
If the people of Canada had a surplus running today through their government we could be giving them tax breaks so that they did not have to borrow money to get a break. It would be in their pay packet every week, a meaningful tax reduction.
In July 1996 the New Zealand government gave every average worker $200 a week more in their pockets. It was a tax break for everyone. They do not have to borrow money to get the benefit.
On March 19, one of the talk show hosts in Vancouver, Mr. Bill Good on CKNW, did a poll about the reduction of taxes. He asked people whether they thought reducing taxes would be a good idea. It coincided with the release of the Tory election platform. He took calls for an hour. There was unanimous support. Every single call to that program was in support of Reform's tax cut proposals and the comments that were made, to summarize generally, were do not trust the PCs because it is just more of the same Liberal-Tory, same old story.
The Budget March 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the member who spoke just before me on the Liberal side of the House mentioned in his speech on the budget that graduates from his area were going south and jobs were going south. That disturbed him quite a lot. He speculated on the reasons that is happening. It is very obvious why it is happening. There are more jobs in the United States and the taxes are lower. Those things are linked together. Where the taxes are lower, the jobs appear.
In my riding of North Vancouver, which is close to the border with the United States, a whole slew of businesses, thousands of small businesses, have moved across the border into the Bellingham area to operate in the United States where there is a lower tax regime.
Canadian businesses have produced jobs in the United States for U.S. citizens. It happens because of lower taxes. Even when we take into account paying for medical care it is still cheaper to work in Washington State than it is in the province of B.C. It is very clear that is the main reason graduates are going south.
The member also mentioned interest rates, which is something a lot of other Liberals mentioned today. He claimed credit for low interest rates. They must think that the people of Canada have no long term memory at all. Prior to the last election the Liberal Party opposed the policies of the Bank of Canada and the federal reserve in the United States which have led to the low interest rate situation.
Because of the need to beat inflation, which was destroying our economy, the federal reserve and the Bank of Canada took the position they did. The Liberals spoke out strongly against the Bank of Canada. They did not approve the policy at all.
It is just amazing. They did not want NAFTA, which has now produced tremendous export markets for Canada. They did not want the interest rates scenario of the Bank of Canada. Suddenly the Liberals want to take credit for all the things that have been beneficial. It is absolutely amazing.
It is Liberal, Tory, same old story. They really have always been in bed together. They still are. Nothing would suit them better than to have the Tories back in the House because everything would tick
along quite nicely. They would pass the same legislation together. They would have a great time.
During question period today one of our members rose to question the finance minister. He could not even rise to answer questions. We must be getting to them if the finance minister is perhaps incapable of rising and answering questions about the figures and about why government departments have not met the targets set in the budget. Departmental spending has been exceeded by the various departments.
I realize I cannot use props but I will describe an example I have with me today. It is quite a large package of papers about 1.5 times the size of a package of copy paper used for copying machines. About 650 pages of material arrived on my desk.