House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was money.

Last in Parliament November 2005, as Conservative MP for Southern Interior (B.C.)

Won his last election, in 2004, with 37% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997 February 3rd, 1998

Madam Speaker, I have heard this bill referred to as a number of housekeeping items. Before I became a member of Parliament for quite some time I had a construction company. Most of my construction was new housing, rather than existing, fixing up, remodelling or, if you would, housekeeping.

But occasionally, either as a filler or as a favour to a friend, we would do a bit of remodelling. But you do not go into a house and redo the drywall in that house if the roof is leaking. You do not do an expensive renovation inside if the foundation is rotten and the house is going to fall down some time after you have completed it.

The government is tinkering with the Income Tax Act which is so rife with problems throughout. It seems absolutely foolish to be putting in a bill the size of a mid size town's telephone book to tinker with a problem that needs major reform.

In West Kootenay—Okanagan I hold town hall meetings throughout the riding. This year I will be holding 15. Five I held in January before we came back to Parliament. I do not know what kind of statistics the Liberals claim they are getting, but in my riding and in the ridings of a lot of my colleagues I have talked to, the priorities for those people are tax reduction and debt reduction.

The government says it is going to put a little money into that but a its priority is new spending. Right now it is patting itself on the back rather vigorously for saying that it is getting close at least to balancing the books, getting rid of the deficit. When the government came in our interest rate was a lot higher than it is right now. Under the previous Liberal government in the early 1980s it hit the 20% mark. A one per cent increase in interest rates would cost, based on our $600 billion worth of debt, $6 billion a year in extra interest payments.

They like to make magic with figures on the other side but that is a pretty simple figure. If you have $600 billion worth of debt and you have to pay 1% a year more on that, that is $6 billion.

At one time our interest was 12% to 14% higher than it is right now. In our economy right now we see incredible pressure to increase the interest rates to look after our falling dollar. Some people wonder why the Bank of Canada is holding back so much instead of putting the interest rate up. There is part of the reason. If the interest rate goes up, there goes the government's deficit balancing plan.

Even if the government manages to hold it down there, it most assuredly needs to start bringing that debt down. Sooner or later in the evolution of things we are likely to see, at least in the short term, an interest increase and that is going to knock the government's deficit plan right off the tracks.

There should be new spending but this has to be in very targeted areas. Those areas are health care, education and technology. Even there any increase in spending must be smarter spending than what we are doing right now.

At one time Canada considered itself central Canada, the area of primarily Ontario and Quebec. They were in the areas where development was taking place and we in the west were considered the hewers of wood and the drawers of water. That is what the west originally was and we accepted that. Now we are starting to come into our own. The west is the new development. It is the new frontier in terms of technology, in terms of the economy of this country.

Yet right at the time that we are starting to come into our own, we are seeing the entire nation go into decline. Things like capital gains taxes are high in this country. Yet the government has even taken away many of the exemptions for capital gains that existed, while in the United States the capital gains taxes are much lower and they are dropping. While they are investing in vehicles to improve their economy, we are returning to being the hewers of wood and the drawers of water on a national scale.

If the government has to roll back something, it should not be the advancements in our economy that we have made in the last hundred plus years. If it is going to roll something back, it should be the taxes and it should be the debt.

This country needs tax reform. The government knows that. Just like the skits on This Hour Has 22 Minutes and the Royal Canadian Air Farce where they keep lampooning the leader of the Reform Party saying “I just love the word reform”, maybe that is what stops the Liberals because they know reform is needed. It just galls them to think that they have to use that word. We do need reform and we need genuine reform, not just tinkering which is what this piece of legislation does.

We need to do things like end the discrimination between working and non-working spouses which basically forces people out of the house into a job in order to get a balanced income tax. Someone making $60,000 a year where their spouse chooses to stay home and raise the family pays a lot more income tax than two family members making $30,000 each. The basic exemption needs to be balanced and need to be increased so that we get rid of this bracket creep.

The Minister of Finance keeps rising and saying no new taxes. The reality is in the last term of the Liberals there were 37 tax increases and the government still pats itself on the back.

We have this incredible system of tax in, tax out, the goods and services tax. Aside from the fact that it is the most hated and aside from the fact that the Liberals promised they were going to get rid of it, if we have to have it, it should be done in a lot more efficient manner. Right now the government taxes people making $8,000 or $9,000 a year. Those people cannot afford taxes and yet they get taxed in any event.

The government says it knows they cannot afford it. That is why it has programs to supplement their income. With the bit of money they have left, they are charged GST on everything they purchase. The government says it knows they cannot afford GST, therefore it has a GST rebate program.

There is something inherently wrong with a system that taxes away someone's money with one bureaucracy and creates another bureaucracy to give some of it back, using up most of it in the process.

We have payroll taxes. CPP is going up 73%; a 73% increase in a pension plan that if they pay in for a generation it will give them less than $9,000 a year back. In the meantime, the MPs opposite gave themselves a 18% reduction in their pension plan which will see them getting a much more generous pension.

The Liberals are going to take away the seniors tax exemption and give them the seniors benefit, the old age pension and guaranteed income supplement tax free.

Heaven help those people who are collecting that if they see fit to go out and look after themselves by raising so much as an extra dollar because the government is going to take 50 cents of it away. It will take away the non-taxable part. They will have to pay tax on the part that is left.

In terms of spending, we do need to spend money on health care. When health care was first introduced, there was a 50:50 partnership. By 1993 in British Columbia it was down to a 28% federal share. Since that time on the national level, the Liberal government has taken another $7 billion away and at the same time it ties the hands of the province in how to deal with this.

We talk about health care. We do not have health care. We have sickness care. When I said we have to start spending our money more wisely, we have to start addressing keeping people healthy instead of paying their bills after they get sick.

Likewise with education, if we are going to stick the next generation with increased CPP, with ever escalating taxes and with a $600 billion debt, we better make sure we provide it some way to equip itself for dealing with the mess we have left.

There are a few good measures in this bill but basically it is like getting a pat on the back while at the same time getting a kick in the butt. If the Liberals want to do something, either start doing some serious fixing of this tax act or else stop kicking Canadians in the butt.

Division No. 48 December 2nd, 1997

Mr. Chairman, that motion is a continuation of the one which was just defeated in the previous vote and, therefore, is now redundant.

Division No. 48 December 2nd, 1997

Mr. Chairman, that motion is only made subject to previous Reform motions passing. If those motions do not pass then Reform will withdraw that one prior to it being voted on.

Division No. 48 December 2nd, 1997

Mr. Chairman, we do not like the Bloc's amendment because, as we said, it is legislated settlement. In the case of the NDP's amendment, it is moving a step closer but it is like straddling a fence and we all know what happens if that is a picket fence and your legs are little short. We think there is still a problem with that. However, it is a move in the right direction and if we have to choose the best of two bad choices then that would be the better, no question.

When we have an arbitrator we think the proper way is take the conditions out and let the arbitrator decide.

Division No. 48 December 2nd, 1997

Mr. Chairman, very briefly I have two points.

First of all, I am having a little trouble understanding why in changing the dates of implementation they are going back to several months before the contract expired. That one frankly confuses me a little. It is irrelevant in my point of view because we are fundamentally opposed to legislating a settlement when there is an arbitrator placed in there.

The arbitrator is being told let these people negotiate, let them settle if they possible can. If they cannot then the arbitrator is empowered to make those settlements. If the government does not trust its arbitrator, it had better make a different choice.

First, if there is an arbitrator, this does not allow them to continue negotiations on the very important question of wages. Second, if they cannot reach a decision, it should not be the government making an arbitrary decision on a corporation it owns any more than the union should be able to arbitrarily decide how much of a raise it will get and the company not have any response. If it cannot be done by negotiation, it should be done by some form of arbitration. That is the reason we are opposed to this motion.

Division No. 48 December 2nd, 1997

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. If I am correct, what will happen is that first the Reform amendment will be voted on, then it will be the clause either as amended now or as amended by the Reform amendment because it is subject to a second amendment.

Division No. 48 December 2nd, 1997

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-24, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 38 to 46 on page 4, and lines 1 to 12, on page 5 with the following:

“9. The arbitration panel shall be guided by:

(a) cost of living index since the last contract settlement

(b) average public sector increase

(c) impact on postal service

(d) financial impact of contract settlement

(e) will settlement cause an increase in postal rates in excess of inflation since last adjustment

(f) any change in job descriptions

(g) public sector comparisons of any of the disputed items.”

Mr. Chairman, my amendment removes one portion of specific guidelines included by the government to give directions to its arbitrator and replaces it with six points which give guidance in terms of the market, in terms of postal service, in terms of the cost of the settlement, average settlements within the public sector and so on to the arbitration panel as proposed by Reform.

Division No. 48 December 2nd, 1997

Mr. Chairman, I want to reply primarily to the intervener from the NDP who suggested that obviously we do not know anything about how FOS works and that we are out to lunch. I am not sure what little parlances he used.

If anyone does not know what is going on it is him. We announced our proposal in detail. I know he was in the House at the time, but I do not know if he was listening or doing something else. Obviously he does not have a good grasp of what we proposed. We put it out in significant detail.

He suggested that FOS has a place but that we should not use it in this case because the union and the post office had an opportunity to select it and they did not. However he is backing arbitration. They had an opportunity choose it but they did not choose that either. Why is he backing that or, for that matter, anything else?

In this proposal they have an opportunity to bargain collectively and to negotiate. There is conciliation, mediation and any other form of settlement they mutually choose and agree upon, provided it does not end up in a labour disruption.

There has to be some final settlement when they say they cannot reach an agreement, cannot agree on how to settle the issue, cannot agree on an arbitrator, or cannot agree on tossing a coin or cutting the cards. If they cannot agree on anything there has to be some final resolution. That is why we are here tonight.

Whether it is final offer arbitration, straight toss of the coin arbitration or any other method, there has to be something. For the member to suggest that we cannot have final offer arbitration because they had the opportunity to choose that and did not he is saying in other words that we should not be here tonight.

I go back to the original question I asked him today which he did not answer. Why did members of the NDP agree in the first place to pass the motion and to fast track it unanimously? If they are so opposed to everything we are trying to do on behalf of 30 million Canadians, why are they even here?

Division No. 48 December 2nd, 1997

Mr. Chairman, I will just add very briefly to that. Contained in this amendment on final offer arbitration is a specific mechanism for the selection of what would be an arbitration panel. We will not go into all the details as it is available here and the vote on it will be deferred until 6.30.

It was mentioned in debate today. It provides a very specific mechanism for the selection of one arbitrator from the union side, one arbitrator from the Canada Post side and one jointly selected to be the third member and chair of the panel. It also provides very specific timelines in order to have the parties make their presentations. It also provides a mechanism for the panel to make a decision.

As I said, if any member wants a detailed reading of it, I would be happy to show them a copy between now and 6.30. It is also on file with the House.

Division No. 48 December 2nd, 1997

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-24, in clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 39 to 45 on page 3 and lines 1 to 37 with the following:

“8.(1) The union and employer shall select 3 people as possible arbitrators acceptable to them. The union and employer shall then have seven days to provide the other party with the names they have selected, along with their curriculum vitae. Each receiving party shall select one name from the list submitted within seven days of receipt and notify the other part of their decision. The two selected arbitrators shall then have a maximum of 14 days to agree upon a third arbitrator who shall chair the arbitration panel.

(2) The arbitration panel shall therefore consist of 3 people, including the chair.

(3) Upon selection of the arbitration panel, each party shall submit their best and final position on each outstanding contract item within 30 days of the arbitrator's selection. The arbitration panel shall notify both parties in writing of the location at which final positions must be filed including the precise date and time of the deadline for filing.

(4) Failure to submit a final position within 30 days shall be considered an abandonment of the process and the other party's final position shall be accepted. If both parties fail to submit within 30 days, settlement shall be completed by binding arbitration.

(5) The arbitration panel may not divulge any details of either party's position to any party until a decision has been rendered.

(6) The arbitration panel shall consider each party's final position on all outstanding contract items as a single package unless it is agreed upon by both parties to the dispute to deal with outstanding items on an individual basis, or in specific groupings.

(7) During the deliberation period of the arbitration panel, each party shall be permitted one day, not exceeding 7.5 hours to make personal presentations to the panel.

(8) Each party shall be provided with not less than 5 working days notice of the time, date and location of their personal presentation. This notice may be provided during the interim submission period.

(9) The arbitration panel shall select the final position of the party whose position is most justifiable in accordance with the guidelines set out for the arbitration panel within 30 days of the filing deadline.

(10) The arbitration panel may not change or modify the position of either party.

(11) If, in the opinion of the arbitration panel, both parties are far removed from a justifiable position, the panel may provide both parties with notice to resubmit their final position. Where this is done, each party has 20 days to resubmit their final position. The arbitration panel shall again notify both parties in writing of the location at which the resubmission must be filed, and the precise date and time of the deadline for filing. No information on details of the first submission may be released before the final settlement is announced.

(12) If either party fails to resubmit their offer within the 20 day period, their last filed position shall be used by the arbitration panel.

(13) The arbitration panel shall shall select the most justifiable final position submitted within 20 days of the filing deadline for resubmissions.

(14) Within 30 days of the announcement of the successful submission, the arbitration panel shall submit a full report containing the final submission of both parties and a full point by point justification of the arbitration panel choice of the submitted offers.

(15) If the report was not unanimous, the dissenting panel member shall submit a minority report within the same timeline as the other panel members.”