Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was money.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Canadian Alliance MP for North Vancouver (B.C.)

Lost his last election, in 2004, with 36% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Social Sciences And Humanities Research Council June 8th, 1994

The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council has a staff of 100 and a budget of $100.1 million, equivalent to a year's worth of taxes for 22,871 taxpayers and certainly symbolic of government waste to most Canadians.

How can the government continue to support $16,000 to investigate attacks on aristocratic behaviour in 18th century Britain and $59,800 to study ecology and history in the insular Quoddy region?

Social Sciences And Humanities Research Council June 8th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, it is tough to stay cool.

Social Sciences And Humanities Research Council June 8th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

At a time when social programs are being reviewed because of a lack of funds and health care transfers are being cut back because of a lack of funds, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council is still dishing out ridiculous grants like $94,000 to study the resolution of unfinished emotional business with a significant other.

When will the government take action to put an end to this sort of nonsensical waste of taxpayers' money?

Teledemocracy June 8th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, there is just one week to go before voting begins on referendum '94.

I am pleased to advise the House that secret PIN numbers have now been distributed to all registered voters and more than 700 high school students in the riding of North Vancouver, to all MPs and also to yourself, Mr. Speaker. I believe this will be the first secret vote by MPs on any issue other than the election of the Speaker of this House.

When we vote between June 15 and 20 we will be making history as we test a Canadian developed technology that could revolutionize democracy as we know it. I would like to thank

MT&T Technologies Inc. of Halifax for pioneering this system of electronic voting.

I hope that all members will take part in this experiment in direct democracy.

Canada Student Financial Assistance Act May 25th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be as brief as I can and I do thank the House for agreeing to extend my time.

The present student loans program is a program under which the federal government-for which one can read taxpayers-pays interest on loans negotiated by students at the banks. In 1991-92 the cost was around $465 million, less about $110 million recovered on defaulted loans. The program assisted about 235,000 students.

One of the improvements to the program which has been proposed by the Reform Party is the adoption of a repayment system similar to that already in place in Australia, Sweden and New Zealand. The repayment system would be income contingent and would work in conjunction with a more generous loan program.

Such a change would recognize the need by students to have funding available for their education, but it would also ensure that taxpayers were repaid at a future time at a rate dependent upon the earning power of the student.

A carefully instituted income contingent loan program would make university education more accessible. It would move more of the responsibility for the cost of university education on to the students themselves, albeit on a deferred basis.

I have met some students who feel that society should bear the entire burden of their education costs with no loans and no repayment ever required. It would be nice if it were as easy as writing a cheque, but reality is now dictating a more prudent approach.

For those members opposite who rolled their eyes skyward when I said that more responsibility for the cost of education should fall upon the students, I ask that they consider the ability of taxpayers to continue to foot the bill.

Two of the countries I mentioned which have instituted the income contingent loan program, Sweden and New Zealand, have faced debt crises within the last decade. We should talk about these things before we are also forced into a situation where a cash crisis makes us make hasty decisions.

I would like to quote from an editorial entitled: "The universities we deserve" which appeared in the Globe and Mail on July 27, 1993. It describes how an ICR loan program would work. To quote:

Every university student would be offered a government sponsored loan. These loans would be available not only to poor students, but to anyone who wants help supporting themselves through university. After graduation, the student would begin paying the loan back, with collection taking place through the income tax system. And here is the key to ICR: repayment is income contingent. Everyone would pay back a set percentage of income, not a set amount. Those making a higher income would have to pay their loans off sooner than those making a lower income who would pay it off over a longer period of time. Combined with greater freedom for universities in setting tuition, ICR loans would make it possible for universities to charge a realistic price for their services without harming accessibility.

It would in fact make it easier for some people to go to university, by giving loans to the middle class who are not now considered to be poor enough to merit a Canada student loan. And ICR recipients could rest assured that the government would not, the minute they graduated, be breathing down their necks for payment.

The current Canada student loan plan has a very high default rate. It is only available to people from low income families and has a tough repayment schedule regardless of post-graduation income. ICR would address these problems whilst also helping to deal with the funding crisis in the universities.

The general thrust of Bill C-28 is good but it would be even better with the incorporation of an aggressive income contingent repayment scheme. I hope that government members will support an amendment along these lines at some stage.

In 1991 the Smith Commission of Inquiry on Canadian University Education concluded that: "A preoccupation with underfunding pervades every campus-.The effect is extremely negative". Unfortunately, the solution to that funding problem is not going to come from the federal government. The deficit and debt burdens will prevent us from increasing allocations. Creative approaches are needed and Sweden, Australia and New Zealand have shown that income contingent repayment schemes can assist students and universities at a time when funding is a problem.

A spinoff benefit for taxpayers would be the knowledge that defaults would be all but eliminated. Loans would be repaid over time and in a manner sensitive to the long term earning ability of the student.

By 1992 defaults under the present Canada student loans program had reached almost one-third of the student loans which were at repayment stage. The value of defaults accumulated on the books since 1964 has reached almost $1 billion and there are significant costs to the taxpayers for the hiring of collection agencies to try to collect on these defaulted loans. The costs are currently reported to be in the range of 18 to 29 per cent of the loans recovered.

Enough is enough. Society is prepared to help students to pay for their education. In fact it wants to help students pay for their education, but some responsibility to repay those loans must be part of the contract. An income contingent repayment plan automatically deducting at source is the fairest and most efficient way to protect the interests of students, universities and taxpayers alike.

It is a fact that individuals with university degrees have a considerably larger lifetime income than those whose highest level of education is high school. In fairness to the taxpayers who helped them get this higher education, students should be prepared to begin repaying their loans as soon as their income permits. This might sometimes mean that loans would not be fully repaid until students were into their 30s or even early 40s, but at least there would be assurance of eventual repayment without the need for collection agencies.

One practical problem that must be overcome is the actual funding of an ICR program. Our cash strapped finance minister is not in any position to raise additional revenues or increase deficits, even for such a commendable cause. We again need to look for alternatives.

We could continue to try to raise the necessary money through the commercial banks of course. Alternatively the lending program could raise funds through the issue of bonds. A stock exchange market for second-hand bonds could be subsequently developed, similar to the system used by the Student Loan Marketing Association of "Sallie Maes" in the United States.

What an opportunity for parents, to invest in bonds which would be used to fund income contingent loan programs for students, an investment in the future with the knowledge that repayment would occur through automatic deductions at source. Students applying for loans would of course have to supply their social insurance numbers and their loan contracts would have to be registered with Revenue Canada.

The ICR system is supported by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. The system would remove the present interest exemption during attendance at college and university. This would result in worthwhile savings to the

taxpayers without having any significant effect on student loan repayments.

In 1987-88 the interest payments by government for students still at college amounted to over $150 million and collection costs that year were almost $11 million. The cost of exempted interest payments and collection procedures falls directly on to the taxpayers, but two-thirds of those taxpayers do not have post-secondary credentials. In other words, the present system places an unfair proportion of the cost of the present student loans program on a segment of taxpayers who receive no benefit in return for their generosity. It only seems fair that students who benefit should ultimately be responsible for the cost of the assistance they receive from the taxpayers.

Subsidies in our society are usually justified on the basis of a social benefit of some sort, but in the case of student loans the recipient can expect to receive significant long term private benefits. While these private benefits are accruing the present loan subsidies represent a transfer of income from taxpayers who do not use higher education services for their families.

The sighs and eye rolling on the opposite side of the House may be reaching epidemic proportions so I feel I should give an example of an income contingent loan payment plan.

Let us say that when a student first graduates he or she does not immediately secure a long term job but settles for a temporary job at $12,000 a year, quite a low salary. The payments on the student loan would be 3 per cent of earnings, or $360 a year. That is just $30 a month, hardly likely to cause hardship.

Let us say that as time passes the student secures a job earning $50,000 a year. The payments could increase to maybe 5 per cent per annum, or $2,500 per year. It is not an excessive amount but enough to get previous student loans paid off fairly quickly.

If the student became unemployed, then payments would be deferred until his or her annual income rose above the preset threshold once again.

Many students who oppose the ICR program do so because they do not like the idea that responsibility for loans should be more firmly placed upon individual students. They feel that society should pay the full shot. Unfortunately the reality is that the money is not available and unless we introduce programs like income contingent loans, there will be a continuing deterioration in funding levels for higher education.

I might suggest that if the government wants to free up a little more money it would be well advised to take note of an item sent to me by Evelyn Leeburn of North Vancouver. It is a newspaper clipping which reads: "Two Clayoquot protesters themselves facing contempt charges have won a $16,000 Canada Council grant to do a documentary on women at the anti-logging blockades". What sort of nonsense is this? This money would be much better spent on higher education.

In summary, I would like to say that Bill C-28 does improve the present situation, even though it fails to show strong and decisive leadership in terms of ICR loans. I give the government credit for including clause 15, part (o) of the regulations, which provides for some experimentation with ICR. We in Reform hope that this will lead to a much larger scale ICR program in due course.

Rocky Mountaineer May 25th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of the fifth season for Rocky Mountaineer rail tours, a private company which runs tourist rail traffic through the beautiful Rocky Mountains to Banff and Jasper.

Rocky Mountaineer has its head office in my riding of North Vancouver. It receives no taxpayer subsidies. It creates a significant number of private sector jobs and has generated more than $5 million in tax revenues for all levels of government.

There have been rumours that VIA Rail may try to get back into the passenger rail business on the same route as that travelled by the Rocky Mountaineer. However a 1990 contract states that this cannot happen without cabinet approval. There is no logical reason to allow a taxpayer subsidized VIA Rail to compete unfairly with a private sector venture.

I urge all members of the House to strongly oppose any permission for VIA Rail to re-enter this market. I also ask all members to join me in wishing Rocky Mountaineer rail tours its best year ever in 1994.

High-Speed Train May 24th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 112 asks the federal government to authorize the construction of a high speed rail link between Windsor and Quebec City. The Bloc motion actually reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately take the required measures to authorize the construction of a high speed train linking the cities of Windsor and Quebec City, as well as the necessary infrastructure.

The motion could be interpreted in a couple of different ways. If the motion is asking only for authorization to proceed using 100 per cent private funding then there would be no real reason for us to stand in the way of construction of such a project.

Alarm bells are ringing for me and I have a reputation to defend. I managed to get to third place on the list of scrooges on Parliament Hill, proof that I am exceptionally careful with taxpayers' dollars. I will have to apologize to my constituents for not making it to number one position, but I will try to do better next year.

I have a reputation to defend, as I said, and alarm bells are going off all over the place in connection with the motion. I see a sink hole, a black hole for taxpayers' dollars into which we could throw billions of dollars without ever creating a self-sustaining transportation system between Windsor and Quebec City.

If the second interpretation of the motion is that we are being asked to authorize taxpayers' money to be spent on this project then I say absolutely not. I quote from a colleague who has

earlier spoken to the motion: "Considering that the political elites of Ottawa have not had the competence to turn an annual budgetary surplus since the early 1970s, I would certainly be surprised if any viable industry would want to enter into a working partnership with the federal government".

What then could possibly be the justification for government participation in a high speed rail proposal? In short the crux of the issue is very simple: if the rail line is a financially viable project then the federal government should give its full legislative backing to such a plan, providing there is no fiscal component involved. If it is not proven to be fiscally viable then why would the government sink any of its non-existent money into such a plan anyway? It certainly would be nice for us to be the North American pioneers of high speed rail transportation but if the logic is not there then neither should the taxpayers' money be there.

The possibility of the public and private sector splitting the cost on this project has been discussed. This means the government would still be asked to pay nearly $3 billion toward something that sounds great but may not work.

Where is the government going to get such a large amount of money? Not only is the availability of $3 billion in question but also I wonder if that amount will rise as more costs are discovered, either costs that were not figured into the original project or costs that were underestimated, as is often the case with government projects. While costs may rise astronomically there is no guarantee a profit would be made at the end of the project anyway.

There is also the question of whether private industry would indeed want to enter a partnership with the federal government as I mentioned earlier. If there are huge profits to be earned then the private sector should tackle this project on its own.

I am not condemning or encouraging the idea of a high speed rail link per se. Rather I am saying the government should not be involved in any way other than legislating to make the project possible, if legislation is indeed needed.

I cannot justify putting $3 billion worth of taxpayers' money into such an uncertain project. I believe the building of such a railway should be left up to the private sector to finance if it feels the need for it.

If there is no interest in this project from private industry then it must feel there is not enough financial stability in the investment to undertake it. If it feels the risk is too great for itself, it is not the place of the government to override the people's decision and spend their money on a project they would not support themselves.

I know this is a revolutionary thought for many members on the government side, the thought that they would not do something that the people wanted them to do.

In my riding of North Vancouver there is a private company which runs tourist rail traffic through the Rocky Mountains. This company, Rocky Mountain Rail Tours, is in its fifth season and receives absolutely no taxpayer subsidies. It creates a significant number of private sector jobs and has generated more than $5 million in taxes for all levels of government. While there were losses for the first five years of operation the company stuck it out and made a six-figure profit in 1993.

That is evidence that such a system can be built and run without government interference. The only threat to this company at present is the possibility of a government run railway receiving extraordinary amounts in subsidies as its competition.

Though it took a few years to get off the ground, Rocky Mountain Rail Tours is now doing very well and the company is forecasting more and more passenger traffic all the time. As I mentioned, the only threat that exists right now is the possibility that cabinet may authorize VIA Rail to begin running again on those same tracks.

Even if the government had wads of money spilling out of its treasury, which it certainly does not, there would be no logical sense in undertaking a high speed rail link between Windsor and Quebec City at this time. That is because one-third of the track would be located in Quebec and as long as the separatist threat continues to loom over the economic and political well-being of the country there is no point in proceeding with such a project.

I want to retain at least number three position on the Hill Times list of Scrooges on Parliament Hill, so I cannot risk supporting this motion that is on the table from the Bloc.

Referendum '94 May 24th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, in the next few days every member of this House will be receiving a letter from my office containing information about Referendum `94 along with a copy of the householder presently being distributed to North Vancouver voters.

We will also begin distributing confidential voter PIN numbers within the next two weeks so members should alert their staff to watch for the arrival of the personalized envelope.

Other than some minor delays in updating the voters' list, all aspects of Referendum `94 are running on track. Our computerized help line is available 24 hours a day on area code 604-666-8378. I urge all members to call at their leisure to learn more about the referendum.

In case some members did not have their pens ready, that help line number for Referendum `94 on proposed changes to the Young Offenders Act is area code 604-666-8378.

Referendum '94 May 10th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that all aspects of Referendum '94, the world's first electronic referendum, are running on target.

An independent auditor has been appointed to ensure security of the vote and we are in the process of enumerating all North Vancouver high school students for the separate voters list for students.

MT&T Technologies has had representatives in North Vancouver training the volunteers who will handle everything from voter enumeration to getting out the vote in the period of June 15 to 20.

The decision has been made to issue separate secret voter numbers to all MPs. Yes, even the Speaker will be able to vote in this referendum on three suggested changes to the Young Offenders Act.

The time is right. The topic is right. Canadians are about to show the world how Canadian developed technology can be used to run a secure democratic referendum as easily as picking up a touch tone telephone.

Supply May 3rd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, members of the Reform will be sharing their time.

At election time there are always promises from politicians that they will change the tax system to make it fair and equitable.

Election after election they make these promises. Despite these promises being made election after election, it seems that a large group of taxpayers have decided in the last couple of years to take things into their own hands.

What I am talking about here is that most taxpayers have now reached the tax saturation point. They have started acting in ways both legal and illegal to avoid the amount of tax they have been paying. For example, Department of Finance figures list tax revenues for September 1992 at $11.07 billion and a year later in September 1993 at $10.17 billion. That is down 8.13 per cent.

Total revenue for April to October 1992 was $64.94 billion and a year later April to October 1993 $61.22 billion, a reduction of almost 5.75 per cent.

While these direct tax revenues were dropping and making it impossible for the government to meet its deficit targets the major indirect tax, the GST, was also down slightly year over year from about $15.2 billion to $15 billion. These drops in revenue seems to point toward the possibility that the tax saturation point has indeed been reached. It could well be that any further attempts by this government to increase the tax burden will result in further reductions in revenues.

Taxpayers have decided as I mentioned earlier that the system is unfair and that they will not pay any more of their earnings into the black hole of federal government spending. As I also said earlier reductions in the amount of taxes paid is being achieved through both legal and illegal means. Legally, by leaving a job where taxes are deducted at source and starting a little home-based business, a lot of taxpayers are discovering that they can deduct many expenses that they could not before.

We know also that there is an underground economy that avoids the GST by negotiating cash deals for services. This in turn leads to lower income declarations by the people providing those services. The end result is that income tax revenues are lower as well.

Of course there is much argument about the size of the underground economy. Most people if they were honest would say that they do know somebody who has paid cash for the GST discount on jobs around their home. People are not afraid to

admit this because they know that it is widespread. The feeling in the community is that the government already gets too much money and they are not giving it any more to waste.

We often hear in the emotional rhetoric of groups like the National Labour Congress that corporations are not paying their fair share of the taxes. The proof is in the fact that the percentage of total tax revenues being paid by corporations has dropped.

Anyone who does even a little bit of research can see that this is a silly argument. Corporations on average have been making less money. Many of them have had large losses over the last few years. Clearly, if they do not make any money or have a loss they will not pay any taxes. Of course their percentage of contribution to the tax take has dropped. This does not mean that corporations are not paying their fair share. In fact the tax rate for corporations has increased over the last five years.

I have heard from time to time members on the government side advocating higher corporate taxes and even implying that if we could just get these evil corporations to pay more taxes the deficit would be solved.

To those who would try to increase taxes on corporations, I would like to say the following. Corporations are no different to people in the way that they react to overtaxation and the reason that they are no different to people is that they are people.

A corporation no more pays taxes than a tractor pays taxes or a lap top computer pays taxes. It is the people who own the shares in the company who pay the taxes.

I never sat behind a corporation in school or rode on a bus with a corporation or spoke on the phone to a corporation. Yet corporations are faced with income taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, T-1s, T-4s, T-5s, AMTs, T-778s, TCTBs and in fact they are tee'd off, as my colleague from Calgary Centre mentioned yesterday.

The owners of small corporations are usually a few members of the same family or partnership of friends. The ownership of large corporations is their shareholders, often the pension funds of these very same unions that complain that the corporations are not paying enough taxes.

The number one cost to business these days is taxes and those costs have to be passed on to the consumer just like any other cost the business faces. Those same groups who demand that property taxes should be higher for those greedy landlords then complain when the tax increases are passed on in the form of increased rents.

I repeat again that anyone who thinks that a corporation is going to act any differently to an individual is dreaming. A corporation is formed in the first place by an individual or group of individuals who get together and use their tax paid money to form that corporation.

The corporation will then cross-border shop. It will use all the available tax deductions and it will even move to another country if it perceives that the conditions in Canada are unfair. The excessive government taxation levels of today have led to corporate tax saturation as well as personal tax saturation. The loss of thousands of jobs as companies move to locations where the tax burden is lower is a disgrace.

I have mentioned in this House before that my New Zealand background has made me very familiar with the debt crisis experienced in New Zealand in 1984. As a result of that crisis, the New Zealand government learned that New Zealanders had reached tax saturation point and that the government would have to spend less and tax less.

Ten years later according to an analysis released by the Toronto-Dominion Bank on April 25, 1994, just this last week, there are some dramatic comparisons that can be made between the Canadian and New Zealand economies. Two years ago, for instance, it cost New Zealand 90 basis points more to issue 10-year money than it did for Canada.

Now it costs New Zealand 150 basis points less than it costs Canada. In that same time New Zealand's unemployment rate has dropped from above 13 per cent down to 9 per cent and the real GDP has risen to 5 per cent. There is a budget surplus expected this year of almost $1 billion. This massive improvement is a direct result of the New Zealand government's decision to spend less and tax less. The Canadian government could do well to learn from that lesson.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank's outlook for the Canadian dollar continues to be bearish because of the failure of this government to recognize the seriousness of its taxation and spending problems.

In closing, I would urge the government to recognize that we have indeed reached tax saturation point and that it should first develop a plan to get control of federal spending and second, to work toward a simplified, single tax system in keeping with the spirit of the motion before us.